PDA

View Full Version : ALL! Please refer to "gun rights" as CIVIL RIGHTS from now on.


oaklander
10-03-2011, 11:41 PM
As most of you know, I am now doing actual politics in Oakland. That means I am meeting with community leaders, doing photo ops, and all the other stuff you read about in political books, or something.

WELL, now I know WHY we do these things. Our MAIN "thing in life" is to achieve our goal (gun rights and defense rights) by getting people to LIKE US. The reason people LIKE US is that most rational people either own guns (and are clear supporters), or are slightly in favor of guns anyways (since they have common sense).

Rational people have a general tendancy to REALLY like the entire concept of right and wrong. And "rights" are called "rights" because THEY ARE RIGHT. Simple english AND math in that little equation!

I can tell you all from experience that I get a better reception with policy makers when I introduce myself as a civil rights person - AND NOT as a "gun rights" person. I do not know why this is, but it does not matter. I now introduce myself as a civil rights person.

Remember, civil rights is NOT a partisan issue!

Anyways, I know I am just "the BBQ guy" - but I am hoping people can start calling us what we REALLY ARE - civil rights advocates.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

Gio
10-04-2011, 12:00 AM
Sounds good Oak, I hope more people can support our Civil Rights too :)

oaklander
10-04-2011, 12:07 AM
Sounds good Oak, I hope more people can support our Civil Rights too :)

Thanks Gio!

Hey - you totally missed an EPIC party. I slacked on sending out PM invites, but we did have a BOATLOAD of people here.

We will have another one soon - but this next one will likely be at a range.

;-)

CalBear
10-04-2011, 12:10 AM
I'm firmly with you on this one. Gun rights, to me, connotes guns themselves having rights, or stereotypical images of gun owners. Civil rights sounds so much better. If I have to specifically mention something related to guns, I'd more likely say "self defense rights."

resident-shooter
10-04-2011, 12:45 AM
I always called them and always will call them "gun privileges"

Rumline
10-04-2011, 1:05 AM
I like this, but then again I've always been interested in keeping ALL of my civil rights, not just RKBA.

CapS
10-04-2011, 1:11 AM
Agree totally!
Don't forget, too, that one of NRA's tags is "America's oldest civil rights organization"

Mute
10-04-2011, 5:55 AM
As an extension of that, anti-gun groups are anti-civil rights groups.

BroncoBob
10-04-2011, 6:11 AM
Just a little concerned with any thing "Sent from my Maxi-Pad" comment :eek: jk
Civil Rights it is. Good to have someone working the inside.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 8:14 AM
You have to be joking.

Another great idea from the world of politics. It's bad enough that the liberal left plays with words because their reasoning and logic can't support their socio-political stance, but from 2A supporters :slap:

If I can argue and pursaude my family and friends who are devout Buddhist that guns can be a means of self-defense, a protection to our American rights, and a means to bring about a more just world, then I can't phantom why one would need to play with words and not use real world facts to support 2A.

I give people more credit...dumbing down and playing with words win no adherents. Same way when I hear undocumented instead if illegal, diversity instead of colored based, etc.

It's gun right for me.

GettoPhilosopher
10-04-2011, 8:18 AM
You have to be joking.

Another great idea from the world of politics. It's bad enough that the liberal left plays with words because their reasoning and logic can't support their socio-political stance, but from 2A supporters :slap:

If I can argue and pursaude my family and friends who are devout Buddhist that guns can be a means of self-defense, a protection to our American rights, and a means to bring about a more just world, then I can't phantom why one would need to play with words and not use real world facts to support 2A.

I give people more credit...dumbing down and playing with words win no adherents. Same way when I hear undocumented instead if illegal, diversity instead of colored based, etc.

It's gun right for me.

So you'll go ahead and call them assault weapons too, right? I mean, we don't need that lib'rl BS calling them "certain semiautomatic rifles". :p

Oak, I'm with you. Always use the most accurate term that best describes what you're talking about. I support all civil rights, including but not limited to the security of those rights (the 2A).

Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 8:46 AM
You have to be joking.

Another great idea from the world of politics. It's bad enough that the liberal left plays with words because their reasoning and logic can't support their socio-political stance, but from 2A supporters :slap:

If I can argue and pursaude my family and friends who are devout Buddhist that guns can be a means of self-defense, a protection to our American rights, and a means to bring about a more just world, then I can't phantom why one would need to play with words and not use real world facts to support 2A.

I give people more credit...dumbing down and playing with words win no adherents. Same way when I hear undocumented instead if illegal, diversity instead of colored based, etc.

It's gun right for me.

It's not about dumbing things down for a wider audience, it's about calling a thing by it's proper name. Gun rights are civil rights because they are in the Bill of Rights. Gun rights, speech rights, assocation rights, due process rights, anti-self incrimination rights... these are all civil rights.

Hozr
10-04-2011, 8:55 AM
I always called them and always will call them "gun privileges"

And priliges can be revoked at any time not unlike your drivers license; thus, civil RIGHTS. Do you want your gun privleges revoked on a whim or clerical error?

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 9:09 AM
And priliges can be revoked at any time not unlike your drivers license; thus, civil RIGHTS. Do you want your gun privleges revoked on a whim or clerical error?

Is this not exactly the state that the 2nd amendment is in? :chris:

Goosebrown
10-04-2011, 9:18 AM
I have always called it a civil right because it is. I also argue that why is abortion covered as a right when it isn't even in the Constitution (R v W established it as privacy extended under the penumbra of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment) where the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated and incorporated right in the 2nd Amendment.

I mean you can't just pick and choose the constitutional rights you want or dang, I am going pick one *you* like and fight against that right. Our civil rights are made from the whole cloth, when you remove any, the rest are threatened.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 9:19 AM
It's not about dumbing things down for a wider audience, it's about calling a thing by it's proper name. Gun rights are civil rights because they are in the Bill of Rights. Gun rights, speech rights, assocation rights, due process rights, anti-self incrimination rights... these are all civil rights.

Right..but read your post...you seperate gun rights from the other various rights under the Bill. I support gun rights...would like to work to that end. The other rights are important, but....that's why I'm on this forum.

I openly advocate guns to family, friends, and co workers...so much so that I take beginners to the range...bring my guns, pay for the ammo and range time for them.

It's more clear to say I believe in gun rights. To say that I am for civil rights is disingeeous when it hides my true intent. I believe in all the rights under the bill, but I don't believe all under attack to the same extent, thus they are not at the front of the burner.

I may be at an advantage because those I reason with have been through war, the massacre in Hue, Vietnam, rule under communism, victims to home invasion.

But there are real life stats, studies on human nature, history, politics, etc that I go on the offensive. Not play defensive trying to justify my stance in gun rights.

We differ, but I feel my ability to argue and the way I carry myself as a responsible gun owner is more important than "expanding" the word used to define my concern for gun rights.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 9:19 AM
No slight intended here but isn't this just generalizing a more specific right?

Whats the intent here? The 2A is one of the rights we have as is the 1A, its just that the 2A has more restrictions that we are trying to balance via the court system, public opinion, legistative, ect.... Just asking.

Goosebrown
10-04-2011, 9:21 AM
@resident, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. It is not a "privilege" calling it such is much more damaging than calling them gun rights. A privilege can be revoked without any real process, a right cannot.

resident-shooter
10-04-2011, 9:29 AM
@resident, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. It is not a "privilege" calling it such is much more damaging than calling them gun rights. A privilege can be revoked without any real process, a right cannot.

um, uh, yea, majority of those rights have been revoked and what little is left is privileges.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 9:31 AM
I respect those that will refer gun rights as civil rights, but I feel this is back pedelling. Playing defensive. Expanding the term used to address our narrow concerns.

With all the studies, history, facts... I feel well armed to argue "why don't you own a gun" when i am asked "why do you own a gun."

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 9:38 AM
Right..but read your post...you seperate gun rights from the other various rights under the Bill. I support gun rights...would like to work to that end. The other rights are important, but....that's why I'm on this forum.

I openly advocate guns to family, friends, and co workers...so much so that I take beginners to the range...bring my guns, pay for the ammo and range time for them.

It's more clear to say I believe in gun rights. To say that I am for civil rights is disingeeous when it hides my true intent. I believe in all the rights under the bill, but I don't believe all under attack to the same extent, thus they are not at the front of the burner.

I may be at an advantage because those I reason with have been through war, the massacre in Hue, Vietnam, rule under communism, victims to home invasion.

But there are real life stats, studies on human nature, history, politics, etc that I go on the offensive. Not play defensive trying to justify my stance in gun rights.

We differ, but I feel my ability to argue and the way I carry myself as a responsible gun owner is more important than "expanding" the word used to define my concern for gun rights.

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with you. The reason I do this and I'm guessing Kevin is advocating the term Civil Rights for the macro effect, not the micro. Our society needs to start understanding that Gun Rights are Civil Rights. Our society is already moving that direction, and we need to change our culture by doing things like saying Gun Rights are Civil Rights. That needs to be accepted.

I don't think anybody needs to hide their RKBA advocacy and I don't think that's what Kevin is advocating. I also take newbies to the range and pay for everything, it's probably the best way to bring people to our side!

I hope I never have to experience the types of horrors you've been through, but I'm glad you are on our side. You've seen the atrocities that civilian disarmament can allow.

bwiese
10-04-2011, 9:42 AM
Viet,

This is called 'playing to win'. End results are all that count, not intermediary feelgood steps.

Remember that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, which is further buttressed by the 14th Amendment (and which protects other rights).

Parallel example: a guy needs to change his restaurant's name from, "Spoiled Dead Meat Served Warm with Booze" and instead start calling it "Joe's Prime Steaks".

Marketing & branding are vital.

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 9:54 AM
Viet,

This is called 'playing to win'. End results are all that count, not intermediary feelgood steps.

Remember that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, which is further buttressed by the 14th Amendment (and which protects other rights).

Parallel example: a guy needs to change his restaurant's name from, "Spoiled Dead Meat Served Warm with Booze" and instead start calling it "Joe's Prime Steaks".

Marketing & branding are vital.

Right. With organizations like the VPC out there doing everything they can to smear gun owners as bad people, we can't just "push through" their lies and win. We have to adapt. In the in end, it doesn't really matter which route we take as long as we get American on the side of the 2nd amendment again. There has been an assault on gun ownership for going on, what, 50 years now? There is a lot of negative baggage out there we need to adapt away from.

That being said, I tell my friends, anti-gun or otherwise, that gun rights are civil rights. And yes, I try to make the point that I am pro-all-civil rights (because I am, like it or not the ACLU is one of the orgs that got me into rights in the first place, before I became pro-RKBA), but the take away is that gun rights are civil rights.

OleCuss
10-04-2011, 9:56 AM
I actually think that the term "gun right" is a poor one. We have a right to self-defense which is not limited to the Right to Keep and Bear a Gun. We have, as part of our right to self-defense the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "Arms" is not limited to firearms. And my right to self-defense is not limited to the self-defense I can exert with "arms", either.

It is a civil right. The particular right is the right to self-defense.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 10:01 AM
Stonewalker,

I thank you for that.

I feel there are many antis with no real life experiences that I don't even bother to argue with them. I could care less if I can convince them nor do I care if they are to join the "cause." Those are lost cases until the realities of life open their eyes.

I care about making a reasonable argument to those who at least listen and hear.

I point out the more doctors in the US (probably car accidents too, alcohol related deaths, etc) kill more people than guns.

I point out that people in countries with no right to arms or a means to obtain arms are subjegated to the rule of might. The gun is the great equalizers.

I point to the cases in Mexico's drug war; the cultural genocide of Tibetians under Communist China; the poor fisherman who stands helplessly while his wife/daugters are raped and killed while his son(s) are recruited to be soldiers BY a pimple faced, AK welding CHILD; I pointed out those that advocate for gun control are those that often have the means to have protection by those welding guns; case of the riots in England where criminals were better armed than civilians, case of one man able to mow down 90+ innocent people, etc

I was speaking to a friend who is also from Hue, Vietnam. She is a devout buddhist who fears guns. She told me a story of an old man who just recently passed away. On his death bed he asked, "where is my son...is he here."

It was during the tet offensive that viet congs with an assassination list went throughout the city of Hue to kill 3-4,000 civilians. The viet congs came to his house and asked if anyone worked for the American government. His son, a recent graduate, was recently hired by the Americans to push pencils and file papers. His son fearing that the family will be killed if he lied and the VCs found out. So the son volunteered to give himself up to save the family. They took him away...never to be seen again. Half the old man's family died that day (Hue is a very small, conservative city), but it's his son's fate that haunted him until the day he died.

I argued with my friend...had the old had one 1911...he could fend off the VCs off. My friend argued the family would die. My response, "better to die fighting with and for your family" than to die the way the old man died..."not knowing."

My friend was silent. If you know her...it spoke volumes to my argument.

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 10:02 AM
I actually think that the term "gun right" is a poor one. We have a right to self-defense which is not limited to the Right to Keep and Bear a Gun. We have, as part of our right to self-defense the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "Arms" is not limited to firearms. And my right to self-defense is not limited to the self-defense I can exert with "arms", either.

It is a civil right. The particular right is the right to self-defense.

Or more broadly, we have the right to use force as needed, without having to ask our government. That is what the 2nd amendment means.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 10:04 AM
I tell my friends, anti-gun or otherwise, that gun rights are civil rights. And yes, I try to make the point that I am pro-all-civil rights (because I am, like it or not the ACLU is one of the orgs that got me into rights in the first place, before I became pro-RKBA), but the take away is that gun rights are civil rights.

In all sincerity, how do you friends respond? I am genuinely interested. Again, I have the advantage of speaking to people who aren't as far removed from reality which makes my advocacy much simplier.

Gio
10-04-2011, 10:10 AM
Thanks Gio!

Hey - you totally missed an EPIC party. I slacked on sending out PM invites, but we did have a BOATLOAD of people here.

We will have another one soon - but this next one will likely be at a range.

;-)

I know, I have a thing called work now and I do not get to go home until 10:30P but I have to be back at 9:30A the next day. Thanks for the invite though, I will not be able to make the next meet either :facepalm:

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 10:10 AM
Stonewalker,

I thank you for that.

I feel there are many antis with no real life experiences that I don't even bother to argue with them. I could care less if I can convince them nor do I care if they are to join the "cause." Those are lost cases until the realities of life open their eyes.

I care about making a reasonable argument to those who at least listen and hear.

I point out the more doctors in the US (probably car accidents too, alcohol related deaths, etc) kill more people than guns.

I point out that people in countries with no right to arms or a means to obtain arms are subjegated to the rule of might. The gun is the great equalizers.

I point to the cases in Mexico's drug war; the cultural genocide of Tibetians under Communist China; the poor fisherman who stands helplessly while his wife/daugters are raped and killed while his son(s) are recruited to be soldiers BY a pimple faced, AK welding CHILD; I pointed out those that advocate for gun control are those that often have the means to have protection by those welding guns; case of the riots in England where criminals were better armed than civilians, case of one man able to mow down 90+ innocent people, etc

I was speaking to a friend who is also from Hue, Vietnam. She is a devout buddhist who fears guns. She told me a story of an old man who just recently passed away. On his death bed he asked, "where is my son...is he here."

It was during the tet offensive that viet congs with an assassination list went throughout the city of Hue to kill 3-4,000 civilians. The viet congs came to his house and asked if anyone worked for the American government. His son, a recent graduate, was recently hired by the Americans to push pencils and file papers. His son fearing that the family will be killed if he lied and the VCs found out. So the son volunteered to give himself up to save the family. They took him away...never to be seen again. Half the old man's family died that day (Hue is a very small, conservative city), but it's his son's fate that haunted him until the day he died.

I argued with my friend...had the old had one 1911...he could fend off the VCs off. My friend argued the family would die. My response, "better to die fighting with and for your family" than to die the way the old man died..."not knowing."

My friend was silent. If you know her...it spoke volumes to my argument.

Here's the thing about those antis who won't listen to argument, they have a worldview which they are unwilling to change. In their worldview, nobody should ever need a gun to defend themselves because people should be good to eachother.

In their mind, when we say that people do need to use force against other people, they hear "people should be bad to eachother". Force just doesn't fit into their worldview. I point this out. I actually say things like "I realize it doesn't fit into your worldview, but every day in our state and likely our city, people are forced to fight for their lives or die trying.

These people are not the true antis. The true antis are few and far between, they are the political leaders. That's why I don't just take newbies to the range, I take Antis to the range. Being prepared to use force against a person doesn't make you a violent person. Antis need to hear stuff like that.

I think your story about your Buddhist friend really illustrates that.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 10:11 AM
Viet,

This is called 'playing to win'. End results are all that count, not intermediary feelgood steps.

Remember that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, which is further buttressed by the 14th Amendment (and which protects other rights).

Parallel example: a guy needs to change his restaurant's name from, "Spoiled Dead Meat Served Warm with Booze" and instead start calling it "Joe's Prime Steaks".

Marketing & branding are vital.

I agree branding and marketing is important especially if you're peddling sub-par products.

However, I truly believe arguing for gun rights on it's own MERIT.

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 10:15 AM
Remember that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, which is further buttressed by the 14th Amendment (and which protects other rights).Which according to courts amounts to virtually zero at the moment.

Ubermcoupe
10-04-2011, 10:18 AM
That's what my License Plate Frame (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=462321) says! :thumbsup:

Stonewalker
10-04-2011, 10:20 AM
In all sincerity, how do you friends respond? I am genuinely interested. Again, I have the advantage of speaking to people who aren't as far removed from reality which makes my advocacy much simplier.

I'll be honest, it's slow going and can be tiresome, but I've made some great progress with some friends. I'm talking the hippiest of the dippiest. I went to a Quaker church awhile ago. Quakers are pacifists. And then demographically speaking, they are generally democrats and socialists. I have a lot of friends from that church that I have spoken with pretty regularly about gun rights and taken shooting. Again, it's a worldview thing. Their worldview has to change before they can vote for hi-cap magazines, black rifle and right to carry laws.

Heck, my wife used to be a super anti and she is pro RKBA (even if she doesn't like guns herself).

I guess what it comes down to, is when I'm in "normal/friend" mode, I operate like I described above, when I'm in "RKBA advocacy mode" it's not quite so personal.

I'd personally rather make friends first and then make them into RKBA advocates. But everybody's different and that's not the only way to do things.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 10:42 AM
Stonewalker,

Thank you for that. Again, I really do respect those and there reasoning on calling gun rights as civil rights. We have differing audiences that we each speak to. I will continue to call it gun rights cause I so strongly believe it's merits. I also speak to an audience that's not as insulated. I only need to point to their life experiences and show them "what if's."

BajaJames83
10-04-2011, 10:43 AM
that is a great point. I will make sure to use that...

Uriah02
10-04-2011, 10:54 AM
I always refer to it as a civil right, especially to people who don't yet know what I'm talking about.

Decoligny
10-04-2011, 11:13 AM
You have to be joking.

Another great idea from the world of politics. It's bad enough that the liberal left plays with words because their reasoning and logic can't support their socio-political stance, but from 2A supporters :slap:

If I can argue and pursaude my family and friends who are devout Buddhist that guns can be a means of self-defense, a protection to our American rights, and a means to bring about a more just world, then I can't phantom why one would need to play with words and not use real world facts to support 2A.

I give people more credit...dumbing down and playing with words win no adherents. Same way when I hear undocumented instead if illegal, diversity instead of colored based, etc.

It's gun right for me.

I would go so far as to say it is "Human Rights" more so than "Civil Rights", and way more so than "Gun Rights."

It is the unalienable human right to life, and the human right to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones that we are talking about here. Not "Gun Rights."

It is the human right to have immediate access to the most effective tools available (loaded guns) to exercise the human right to defend your life.

It is the human right to freedom from tyranny, and the right to defend against that tyranny that we are talking about here. Not "Gun Rights."

While "Gun Rights" do play a major part in all of the above, the rights that are included in the freedoms we seek to protect by exercising the "right to keep and bear arms" go a whole lot further than "Gun Rights.

By starting a conversation from the stance of "I am a civil rights/human right activist!", you put your intended audience at ease.
You can deliver a message that they would otherwise not have been receptive to at all.
When you state that a person has the right to not live in fear of being attacked by evil people, you get them to start agreeing with you.
You can ease people slowly out of their anti-gun position by feeding them the truth, but first they have to be willing to listen to the truth.

When you start a conversation from the stance of "I am a gun rights activist!", you put your intended audience on the defensive.
They will not be recptive to the message.
When you state that a person has the right to not live in fear of being attacked by evil people, they will argue that owning a gun make a person evil, and they will be in total disagreement with you because you are a "gun nut".
They will dig themselves deeper into the beliefs they currently hold because a "Gun Rights" person is the enemy, and they will reject whatever you say as propaganda.

Steyr_223
10-04-2011, 11:34 AM
Been calling gun rights as a civil right and a human right since the 80's..Where have you been?

;)

Flopper
10-04-2011, 11:38 AM
Presenting it as a civil right--which it is--is the way to win, excellent!

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 11:38 AM
I would go so far as to say it is "Human Rights" more so than "Civil Rights", and way more so than "Gun Rights."

It is the unalienable human right to life, and the human right to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones that we are talking about here. Not "Gun Rights."

It is the human right to have immediate access to the most effective tools available (loaded guns) to exercise the human right to defend your life.

It is the human right to freedom from tyranny, and the right to defend against that tyranny that we are talking about here. Not "Gun Rights."

While "Gun Rights" do play a major part in all of the above, the rights that are included in the freedoms we seek to protect by exercising the "right to keep and bear arms" go a whole lot further than "Gun Rights.

Yes, but thankfully our founding fathers were mindful and had the insight to list these rights in subcategories or anything under the sun could fit under "the right to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness." One could use your line of thought and argue it's a human right or civil rights to have fedearlly funded housing, health care, etc

They listed 2A "the right to bear arms." They tailored and narrowly defined this right for a reason.

Notice no matter how you slice and dice "civil" or "human" rights...it is inescapable that you need to interject "gun(s) or "gun right" for which you (we) are pushing for.

Seems less work arguing for 2A on it's merit than to argue for "civil/human " rights, then have to explain how gun rights fall under that domain and then how civil rights, specifically gun rights need to be honored. I know I wouldn't appreciate this wool over my head round about way of arguing.

Fyathyrio
10-04-2011, 11:59 AM
Just a thought for those that wish to remain with the term "gun rights", in reality that's too narrow. Now, everybody on this forum is on the same side and understands what you mean, but we aren't the ones trying to limit your civil rights. I also have the right to use knives, baseball bats, or flinging poo if that's what's available to defend myself and family. All are arms, but I prefer guns. Like the Supreme Court said, self defense is a right, and Dick Heller and Otis McDonald also choose to use a handgun for that purpose. Gun Rights = Civil Rights, and civil rights is a term that not only gives us moral high ground in the fight, but also helps remove the negative and emotionally charged word from the discussion with those that oppose us.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 12:02 PM
To maintain intellectual consistency...

It's now Calcivilrights.net...and this is not the "2A" forum, but the "civil rights" forum?

Just want to know where this logic ends.

Arisaka
10-04-2011, 12:19 PM
^^^ What's up with your signature? Do you advocate restricting the 2A because some "idiots" shouldn't be allowed to have that particular right?

taperxz
10-04-2011, 12:21 PM
^^^ What's up with your signature? Do you advocate restricting the 2A because some "idiots" shouldn't be allowed to have that particular right?

I think what that simply means is that you should not blame the firearm for the mistake/crime. You can only blame the person using it in that way.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 12:22 PM
Just a thought for those that wish to remain with the term "gun rights", in reality that's too narrow. Now, everybody on this forum is on the same side and understands what you mean, but we aren't the ones trying to limit your civil rights. I also have the right to use knives, baseball bats, or flinging poo if that's what's available to defend myself and family. All are arms, but I prefer guns. Like the Supreme Court said, self defense is a right, and Dick Heller and Otis McDonald also choose to use a handgun for that purpose. Gun Rights = Civil Rights, and civil rights is a term that not only gives us moral high ground in the fight, but also helps remove the negative and emotionally charged word from the discussion with those that oppose us.

The word "civil rights" does not give me the moral high ground in as much as saying affordable housing, free health care are civil rights.

The moral high ground to arguing 2A is on it's merit. Real world examples of oppression of those with guns over those without, Supreme Court rulings, founding fathers listing that SPECIFIC right to stand on its own.

Gun right allows you to have the right to bear arms...to defend yourself.

Civil rights/human rights allow you to defend yourself with a stick, a bat, or by hurling a voiceful flying Vietnamese (me) at your transgressor.

I want to be specific on what right I want (guns), not a generalize feel good term.

I love you guys...I thank you for the arguments and well thought out points...I just don't get why not argue for gun rights on its own merit. It's moral high ground stands on its own.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 12:23 PM
I think what that simply means is that you should not blame the firearm for the mistake/crime. You can only blame the person using it in that way.

Thank you

Arisaka
10-04-2011, 12:31 PM
Strange wording.

Untamed1972
10-04-2011, 12:39 PM
I can tell you all from experience that I get a better reception with policy makers when I introduce myself as a civil rights person - AND NOT as a "gun rights" person. I do not know why this is, but it does not matter. I now introduce myself as a civil rights person.

That's prolly cuz most people equate being "pro-civil-rights" to being against racism, not homophobic and pro-choice. And since people dont like being branded racist or other derogatory terms, being pro-civil-rights is a quick and easy way for people to say "Hey see....I'm a good guy".

But I agree with your goal and changing the perception. 2A is just as important as all the other civil rights.

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 1:09 PM
Civil rights also includes being able to make a living, keep your paycheck so you can actually provide for your own family instead of someone else's, and the ability do with your property what you want, but that's all been thrown in the gutter too.

WTF did the people in the 50's and 60's who history has called the "Civil Rights" movement actually accomplish to have done so poorly in this to have left so much of our liberty still crushed under the government's boots? That's like me taking a squirt gun and spraying a couple of times on the side of a tire and saying I washed my car.

oaklander
10-04-2011, 1:10 PM
This!

I am simply amazed at the allies I am finding out here in Oakland. They are old school social activist types who love freedom, and love rights. Me and them might differ on certain issues, but these folks WILL stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us.

By calling it WHAT IT IS, we show folks that we are rights people. People LIKE rights people. It is VERY American.

When I wear my "rights" progun t-shirts, I get positive feedback from just about everyone, from grandmothers, to police officers. The "rights" thing also reminds US why we do this. It is not just for US, it is for our communities, state, and country. No rational person wants to live in a society where he or she does not have the most basic RIGHT - the RIGHT to defend a life.


Viet,

This is called 'playing to win'. End results are all that count, not intermediary feelgood steps.

Remember that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, which is further buttressed by the 14th Amendment (and which protects other rights).

Parallel example: a guy needs to change his restaurant's name from, "Spoiled Dead Meat Served Warm with Booze" and instead start calling it "Joe's Prime Steaks".

Marketing & branding are vital.

stix213
10-04-2011, 1:15 PM
Guns don't have rights. Its the people that do.

"Gun rights" is to the 2nd as "Mouth rights" is to the 1st. I'm with you on this Oak. From now on its just one more civil right.

For people that don't want to say "civil rights" I suggest saying "Self Defense rights."

yellowfin
10-04-2011, 1:27 PM
American rights also can be used.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 1:31 PM
Still don't get the drift here. It is already a civil right. I would not refer it to gun rights as being proper either but it is the "2A right" Everyone already knows its a civil right. If you run across someone that doesn't know that, then you point them to the Bill of Rights.

You can package it any way you want. I personally am NOT a Civil Rights Activist. I am however a staunch support of the strict meaning of the 2A.

Most of the anti's know it is a right but will maintain that the document is living and breathing for the sake of their own argument anyway. Those on the fence don't really give a darn as long as the laws don't affect them.

This is JMO! It just seems like you are trying to put sugar on a sugar coated cereal. Which is OK if you want but i don't see it changing much the way things are changing when the initials LTC were advised.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 1:43 PM
For clarification!! Oak, i understand what you are doing and am all for it! I am just questioning the effects of using this in the context of the 2A and specifically internally in this forum. A place that even a novice could establish that it is in fact a civil right anyway.

Smokeybehr
10-04-2011, 1:55 PM
Is this not exactly the state that the 2nd amendment is in? :chris:

It was before incorporation.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 2:05 PM
Still don't get the drift here. It is already a civil right. I would not refer it to gun rights as being proper either but it is the "2A right" Everyone already knows its a civil right. If you run across someone that doesn't know that, then you point them to the Bill of Rights.

You can package it any way you want. I personally am NOT a Civil Rights Activist. I am however a staunch support of the strict meaning of the 2A.

Most of the anti's know it is a right but will maintain that the document is living and breathing for the sake of their own argument anyway. Those on the fence don't really give a darn as long as the laws don't affect them.

This is JMO! It just seems like you are trying to put sugar on a sugar coated cereal. Which is OK if you want but i don't see it changing much the way things are changing when the initials LTC were advised.

We're on the same wave length.

Is it a fee hike, revenue generator....or is it a tax hike?

Is it diversity...or a color based admission?

Are they illegal aliens...or undocumented seasonal worker?

Is it pro choice...or pro abortion.

Both sides of the political spectrum advocate for RIGHTS, but differ on what constitute as being a right...right to an abortion, right to keep most of your earnings, right for others to take your earnings. This spills over to "choice." A person could be a proponent of pro choice (abortion) , and yet be against choice to vote for school choice.

I don't know about others, but I feel I'm being played with these play on words. If a person can't argue on the merit of an idea....then use Orwellian double think.

Seriously, you get people to back your gun rights views under the disguise of "civil rights,"
His do people react when that civil rights means no restrictions on magazine capacity, LTC as shall issue, no 10 days wait period, no CA DOJ roster, no bullet button, etc.?

I suspect you may get a "what...this isn't what mean mean by civil rights."

Mute
10-04-2011, 2:08 PM
Our battle for the 2nd is not just legal it also cultural and political. While we have to remain clear that the 2nd is about guns we also need to use the power of language to our advantage by expanding gun rights to also mean civil rights. We should make being against guns to also mean being against civil rights to the point that when someone proclaims their association with anti-gun groups, people will give them disgusted looks the same way someone proclaiming themselvs KKK member would receive. It should be made clear that opposing gun rights IS opposing civil rights.

We are fighting a war and need to take advantage of every tool at our disposal.

creekside
10-04-2011, 2:21 PM
Everyone already knows [gun rights are] a civil right. If you run across someone that doesn't know that, then you point them to the Bill of Rights.

This is exactly the issue reaching out to many people. They don't know it's a civil right. We've seen how teaching the 2nd Amendment has been edited out of the schools. I even saw this at the UC level in a criminology program.

Spelling out that self defense is a human right, and the right to possess defensive weapons makes that right meaningful, is a key point in this struggle. This should be an international and not just a national fight: every day in countries that border the United States, let alone the developing world, people in other countries are viciously killed because they are deprived of access to the tools to protect their families.

At some risk of derailment, when we allow police and military to have self-defense and ordinary people do not (as in San Francisco), this puts all other rights in question. You may never be accused of a crime, but the 4th and 5th Amendment are strong protections from police abuse anyway.

The right to self defense is a natural or human right.

The right to free speech is meaningless if it only applies to quill pens and a single voice on a busy street. The right to self defense is meaningless if it applies only to black powder firearms, or firearms only possessed in the home.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 2:26 PM
Opposing gun rights is opposing civil rights will work to convinve people as much as saying opposing a color blind admission policy is opposing diversity; opposing amnesty for illegal aliens is opposing immigration; opposing abortion is opposing a woman's choice; opposing teacher's union is opposing free public education; opposing Obama are is opposing access to health care....etc

Play on words is it not?

Again, ask anyone who is for civil rights (I can't imagine many who oppose this) if their understanding of civil rights include 10 + round magazine, no 10 wait period, no bullet button, no CA roster, shall issue LTC, etc.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 2:33 PM
This is exactly the issue reaching out to many people. They don't know it's a civil right. We've seen how teaching the 2nd Amendment has been edited out of the schools. I even saw this at the UC level in a criminology program.

Spelling out that self defense is a human right, and the right to possess defensive weapons makes that right meaningful, is a key point in this struggle. This should be an international and not just a national fight: every day in countries that border the United States, let alone the developing world, people in other countries are viciously killed because they are deprived of access to the tools to protect their families.

At some risk of derailment, when we allow police and military to have self-defense and ordinary people do not (as in San Francisco), this puts all other rights in question. You may never be accused of a crime, but the 4th and 5th Amendment are strong protections from police abuse anyway.

The right to self defense is a natural or human right.

The right to free speech is meaningless if it only applies to quill pens and a single voice on a busy street. The right to self defense is meaningless if it applies only to black powder firearms, or firearms only possessed in the home.

What i bolded just about sums up your response. Its why my kid is in college OUT OF STATE. Not knocking some of the good things our UC system teaches though.

Mute
10-04-2011, 2:33 PM
Opposing gun rights is opposing civil rights will work to convinve people as much as saying opposing a color blind admission policy is opposing diversity; opposing amnesty for illegal aliens is opposing immigration; opposing abortion is opposing a woman's choice; opposing teacher's union is opposing free public education; opposing Obama are is opposing access to health care....etc You're speculating. Since no one has tried very hard to equate gun rights to civil rights it's not a surprise that many don't know the truth of the matter. Your resistance is a strong sign of that unwillingness to see this and one of the reason so many still doesn't see the equivalence between the two.

Play on words is it not? On the contrary. Gun rights IS in the Bill of Rights. All the other things you listed are not. If they try to pull that card, it's not hard to point that out and to show who is playing loose with the Constitution.

Again, ask anyone who is for civil rights (I can't imagine many who oppose this) if their understanding of civil rights include 10 + round magazine, no 10 wait period, no bullet button, no CA roster, shall issue LTC, etc.

Again, a case of not being properly educated on the 2nd Amendment portion of our civil rights. This is not a play on words. To say it's a play on word is to suggest that gun rights isn't a civil rights. We are not creating a right. We are defending one that is specifically written about and has, unfortunately, been thrown to the wayside for too long.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 2:38 PM
This is exactly the issue reaching out to many people. They don't know it's a civil right. We've seen how teaching the 2nd Amendment has been edited out of the schools. I even saw this at the UC level in a criminology program.

Spelling out that self defense is a human right, and the right to possess defensive weapons makes that right meaningful, is a key point in this struggle. This should be an international and not just a national fight: every day in countries that border the United States, let alone the developing world, people in other countries are viciously killed because they are deprived of access to the tools to protect their families.

At some risk of derailment, when we allow police and military to have self-defense and ordinary people do not (as in San Francisco), this puts all other rights in question. You may never be accused of a crime, but the 4th and 5th Amendment are strong protections from police abuse anyway.

The right to self defense is a natural or human right.

The right to free speech is meaningless if it only applies to quill pens and a single voice on a busy street. The right to self defense is meaningless if it applies only to black powder firearms, or firearms only possessed in the home.

YES...the 2 amendment being edited out in textbook or glossed over WHILE civil rights have not. Because most people don't see them as one and the same. So why defend 2A under the guise of civil rights. Why not straight up defend 2A on its own and based on it's many merits.

Seriously, anyone who is so easily persuaded to 2A stances because its called civil rights could easily turn coat it with any "soft ball" argument against 2A.

viet4lifeOC
10-04-2011, 2:42 PM
Mute,

we probably agree more than disagree, but it's a slow day at work :).

Again,...no matter how you cut it..you can talk about civil rights...but you will eventually get to the core of your advocacy..GUN RIGHTS.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 2:46 PM
Again, a case of not being properly educated on the 2nd Amendment portion of our civil rights. This is not a play on words. To say it's a play on word is to suggest that gun rights isn't a civil rights. We are not creating a right. We are defending one that is specifically written about and has, unfortunately, been thrown to the wayside for too long.

Your thinking on this is like saying anyone who doesn't own a gun is stupid. Thats not the case with MOST people.

They either firmly believe in the right to bear arms, adamantly against it or have no opinion and just don't care as long as it doesn't affect their lives. Even if you push an agenda on these three categories, they will still be of the same opinion. Most anti's will still regardless if you tell them something is a civil right will still maintain that restrictions are required for even the most basic rights including free speech. Its JMO but it will still end up in a conversation going in circles.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 2:47 PM
Mute,

we probably agree more than disagree, but it's a slow day at work :).

Again,...no matter how you cut it..you can talk about civil rights...but you will eventually get to the core of your advocacy..2A RIGHTS.

fixed it for ya ;)

Smokeybehr
10-04-2011, 3:00 PM
Not to get off the track too much, but Viet is thinking a little wrongly when he believes that free health care and affordable housing are "rights". If something is to be provided to you by someone else, then it's not a right. You aren't given free speech, free press, free association, or your choice of religion by someone; you already have them as a natural part of being alive. When an entity is required to give you something, then it is not a right, as one entity is forcing another entity to do something for you.

Following that line of thinking, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not require anyone to do anything to provide you that right. On the contrary, it actually requires that the Government do as little as possible (preferably nothing) to diminish those rights.

Mute
10-04-2011, 3:26 PM
Your thinking on this is like saying anyone who doesn't own a gun is stupid. Thats not the case with MOST people. I don't know how you even came close to this conclusion based on what I wrote.

They either firmly believe in the right to bear arms, adamantly against it or have no opinion and just don't care as long as it doesn't affect their lives. Even if you push an agenda on these three categories, they will still be of the same opinion. Most anti's will still regardless if you tell them something is a civil right will still maintain that restrictions are required for even the most basic rights including free speech. Its JMO but it will still end up in a conversation going in circles.

I am not talking about changing inflexible minds. I am suggesting that we try to make gun rights mainstream. No one even questions the validity of the 1st as a civil right. We need to make that the case for the 2nd by changing the minds of those who are fence sitters. Most people don't give much thought to the 1st either because mostly, it has little affect on their daily lives that is tangible to them, yet they have no qualms about supporting it. And so should it be with the second. Raising their awareness of the civil right that is gun rights is a step in that direction.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 3:39 PM
I am not talking about changing inflexible minds. I am suggesting that we try to make gun rights mainstream. No one even questions the validity of the 1st as a civil right. We need to make that the case for the 2nd by changing the minds of those who are fence sitters. Most people don't give much thought to the 1st either because mostly, it has little affect on their daily lives that is tangible to them, yet they have no qualms about supporting it. And so should it be with the second. Raising their awareness of the civil right that is gun rights is a step in that direction.

Its obvious you don't pay attention to 1A court challenges. They probably come up more than 2A challenges historically.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 3:47 PM
Again, a case of not being properly educated on the 2nd Amendment portion of our civil rights. This is not a play on words. To say it's a play on word is to suggest that gun rights isn't a civil rights. We are not creating a right. We are defending one that is specifically written about and has, unfortunately, been thrown to the wayside for too long.

Where i come up with my idea is that WHO can be certain about the 2A enough in todays world in anything related to the 2A? Especially when most challenges today are still paving the way to define it? Very few of us can actually educate others in this environment. If i were wrong Alan Gura would be a footnote and making about $5 and hour. True 2A rights, the way we want to see them are still in their infancy stages of success. IMHO

Most Americans know it is a "civil right". Are we educating with our opinion of the 2A or are we pushing our liberal ideas of the 2A. AND yes! Pushing our purest form of 2A rights is liberal thinking.

Overbear
10-04-2011, 4:05 PM
Once again I am going to step out and say...this is again crap. I am sick of "no no we need to call it XYZ not ABC" for every idea.

I for one will continue to call it gun rights/2a rights, just as I call it CCW not whatever that stupid term that was deamed "pc". Changing the name does nothing but water it down and muddy the waters more, its a copout and the ***** way to deal with it.

mag360
10-04-2011, 4:18 PM
then you will only continue to be an anchor for the rest of us moving this forward.

is the 2A on the bill of rights?

why yes it is?

does the bill of rights equate to civil rights?

yes...

so are "arms" rights then civil rights? Yes.

we are going bigger than just guns. Get on the train!

five.five-six
10-04-2011, 4:29 PM
I respect those that will refer gun rights as civil rights, but I feel this is back pedelling. Playing defensive. Expanding the term used to address our narrow concerns.

With all the studies, history, facts... I feel well armed to argue "why don't you own a gun" when i am asked "why do you own a gun."

no way, it's full offense, brilliant!

this is the kind of tactic that puts pot smoking hippies on their heels :thumbsup:

OleCuss
10-04-2011, 4:50 PM
Without the right to self-defense/RKBA no civil right will survive intact. And without the other civil rights intact the right to self-defense will also be impaired if not destroyed.

Our biggest challenge was and is racism. It led to the abridgement of our RKBA and I contend that it is still a huge part of the reason why our rights are still violated wholesale.

Don29palms
10-04-2011, 5:34 PM
You don't have any rights. You only have privileges that the government allows you to have. Rights cannot be restricted or taken away in the name of public safety or any other reason. All of our supposed rights have been trampled on in one way or another. You have PKBA (Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms) that the government has let us have.

Overbear
10-04-2011, 5:54 PM
then you will only continue to be an anchor for the rest of us moving this forward.

So you feel it was "right" to call people "native Americans" or "african Americans" rather than just plain old Americans.

The point here is to call a spade a spade, and not mince around and play the "softer words" bull**** game. The uberlib adjenda includes using "softer" words, and you are playing right into it.

vincewarde
10-04-2011, 5:55 PM
My word! The fact that some folks want to make everything a civil right does not mean we should abandon the term!

Please think about how far we have come since we wisely started talking about "gun rights" in opposition to "gun control". People in the US do not like to infringe on any right.

I think it's time to move further in that direction. If you do not like "civil right" how about "constitutional right"? Personally, I believe that this is important because it will help non-gun owners to understand that anti-gun efforts threaten rights they may care about.

Using the right words can help gain support from evangelicals and others who care about freedom of religion, gays who care about the right to privacy (as well as other rights), minorities who care about equal protection and non-discrimination, even just people who just care about due process and freedom in general. I think that linking 2nd Amendment rights to other constitutionally protected rights is the key to cementing our gains and making new ones.

dantodd
10-04-2011, 6:12 PM
2A rights are unquestionably a subset of "civil rights" just as racial equality and gender equality advocates call themselves civil rights activists first even though they only focus on a narrow aspect of civil rights. As more people acknowledge 2A rights as part of our civil rights then LCAV, Brady et. al. will properly be limped together with the KKK and other hate groups.

WE are CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS because we are fighting for civil rights. We are also gun rights activists because that is the particular civil right that we are actively defending.

As such we should support other civil rights activists and expect the same from them.

Read the definition of civil rights on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights. Mybe someone should update the page.

otalps
10-04-2011, 6:20 PM
It is a civil right of course but I still prefer the term Natural Right because I don't believe the government has the authority to infringe upon it. We would have this right with or without the government.

oaklander
10-04-2011, 8:09 PM
2A rights are unquestionably a subset of "civil rights" just as racial equality and gender equality advocates call themselves civil rights activists first even though they only focus on a narrow aspect of civil rights. As more people acknowledge 2A rights as part of our civil rights then LCAV, Brady et. al. will properly be limped together with the KKK and other hate groups.

WE are CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS because we are fighting for civil rights. We are also gun rights activists because that is the particular civil right that we are actively defending.

As such we should support other civil rights activists and expect the same from them.

Read the definition of civil rights on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights. Mybe someone should update the page.

NAILED IT!

;-)


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

oaklander
10-04-2011, 8:14 PM
So you feel it was "right" to call people "native Americans" or "african Americans" rather than just plain old Americans.

The point here is to call a spade a spade, and not mince around and play the "softer words" bull**** game. The uberlib adjenda includes using "softer" words, and you are playing right into it.

I call things as I see them. Some of my ancesters in The South were indians, and the most of the folks on my street are blacks.

And this is not even a partisan issue. All rational people support the right of self-defense. Most people support guns. That is the ENTIRE point. There is no agenda here, unless you count expanding YOUR RIGHTS as an "agenda."

The issue is not how hard or soft a word sounds, the issue is whether you want to win or lose. It is up to you. Right now, you are losing. You can't argue with something that is correct.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

oaklander
10-04-2011, 8:24 PM
You don't have any rights. You only have privileges that the government allows you to have. Rights cannot be restricted or taken away in the name of public safety or any other reason. All of our supposed rights have been trampled on in one way or another. You have PKBA (Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms) that the government has let us have.

We ARE the government. We live in a representative democracy, and that means that we govern ourselves.

We have exactly what we DECIDE we have. Our country, our PEOPLE - have decided time and time again that we DO have the right to keep and bear arms. Me and a TEAM of other dedicated people here on this forum have been EXPANDING these rights over the last several years through litigation and public outreach and coalitions. We just stopped two cities from passing bad law on this. The guy who was personally responsible for the entire OLL revolution was at my house two nights ago. We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW SHOOTERS IN THIS STATE because of him and the folks who work with him.

Who are you, and where have you been for the last few years? We are winning, dude - and what we are doing now is taking things up to the next level. We are "mainstreaming" something that was mainstream 50 years ago. We are literally restoring a right that WAS lost.

Open your eyes.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

LDSGJimbo
10-04-2011, 8:39 PM
Will do from now on. Good advice.

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.

marcusrn
10-04-2011, 9:43 PM
A large percentage of voters are female and another large group is made up what Jeff Copper would call "over-civilized men".

These groups would much prefer to hear about civil rights than about gun rights. Case closed!

Most everyone on this site is singing in the same choir. We are not trying to change each other. Liberal people have been beating us over the head with semantics for years and they are much better at it than us IMO. If you don't agree look at the draconian laws in this state.

It sounds like Oaklander is heading in the right direction.

Years ago when I first met my wife I had been kind of prejudiced to law enforcement because of some negative experiences I'd had with cops. For the first year i just thought of her as social worker with a gun. Pretty soon I became prejudiced in a positive way toward law enforcement because of her example alone. Sometimes people need time and an excuse to change their views.

Most people don't want to hear about guns or Articles of Confederation. It is rude and unsocial not at least pay lip service to "civil rights".

Praise to you Oaklander for your" consciousness raising" efforts, and god bless you for all the pro bono work.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 10:10 PM
I call things as I see them. Some of my ancesters in The South were indians, and the most of the folks on my street are blacks.

And this is not even a partisan issue. All rational people support the right of self-defense. Most people support guns. That is the ENTIRE point. There is no agenda here, unless you count expanding YOUR RIGHTS as an "agenda."

The issue is not how hard or soft a word sounds, the issue is whether you want to win or lose. It is up to you. Right now, you are losing. You can't argue with something that is correct.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

We ARE the government. We live in a representative democracy, and that means that we govern ourselves.

We have exactly what we DECIDE we have. Our country, our PEOPLE - have decided time and time again that we DO have the right to keep and bear arms. Me and a TEAM of other dedicated people here on this forum have been EXPANDING these rights over the last several years through litigation and public outreach and coalitions. We just stopped two cities from passing bad law on this. The guy who was personally responsible for the entire OLL revolution was at my house two nights ago. We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW SHOOTERS IN THIS STATE because of him and the folks who work with him.

Who are you, and where have you been for the last few years? We are winning, dude - and what we are doing now is taking things up to the next level. We are "mainstreaming" something that was mainstream 50 years ago. We are literally restoring a right that WAS lost.

Open your eyes.





Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

So which one is it? Are we winning or losing? BTW, if you want to run for office be prepared for questions like this of statements you may OR may not make.

Mute
10-05-2011, 5:55 AM
We are winning in the courts, but in the area of public image, we've been on the short end of the stick for a long time. It's turning around a little, but if we fight back wisely, we can gain more people to our side much quicker.

Cali-Shooter
10-05-2011, 6:12 AM
Gun rights = Civil rights. Absolute truth right there.

Don29palms
10-05-2011, 6:19 AM
We ARE the government. We live in a representative democracy, and that means that we govern ourselves.

We have exactly what we DECIDE we have. Our country, our PEOPLE - have decided time and time again that we DO have the right to keep and bear arms. Me and a TEAM of other dedicated people here on this forum have been EXPANDING these rights over the last several years through litigation and public outreach and coalitions. We just stopped two cities from passing bad law on this. The guy who was personally responsible for the entire OLL revolution was at my house two nights ago. We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW SHOOTERS IN THIS STATE because of him and the folks who work with him.

Who are you, and where have you been for the last few years? We are winning, dude - and what we are doing now is taking things up to the next level. We are "mainstreaming" something that was mainstream 50 years ago. We are literally restoring a right that WAS lost.

Open your eyes.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.
While I agree and do appeciate the work being done by you and others until the people in charge actually follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights nothing will change. I cannot go into a gunshop and buy a handgun and load up a 15rd magazine and put it behind my back and walk out with it. Until that is possible (never will happen) I will say that the 2A no longer is a right. I have said many times and I'll say it again you don't have to get permission to exercise a RIGHT. If you have to get permission it is no longer a RIGHT it is a PRIVILEGE.

P.S. Please keep up the good work and the progress you have made.

Cali-Shooter
10-05-2011, 6:27 AM
^ ^ ^ The CA nanny ban state has turned a fundamental right for U.S. citizens into a privilege and a luxury for the lucky chosen few selected by law or certain exemptions.

QQQ
10-05-2011, 1:42 PM
I very much disagree with the reasoning but will carry out the marching orders regardless.

Civil rights.

dantodd
10-05-2011, 1:47 PM
So which one is it? Are we winning or losing? BTW, if you want to run for office be prepared for questions like this of statements you may OR may not make.

You are more accurate than you know. You took 2 things he wrote out of context and tried to make an inconsistency where there was none.

We (as in the civil rights movement) are winning.

Those who refuse to see that gun rights are civil rights are losing.

This is what Oak said, you completely misunderstood him, as you said, it is not likely the last time it will happen.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 1:56 PM
@ Dantodd

I know exactly what I did.

I still see no reason to "generalize" 2A rights. I may very well be a 2A activist but that does not mean I will agree with other 2A activist opinions on other civil rights. This is the only reason I will only consider myself a 2A activist as opposed to a blanket civil rights activist. I think you understand what I mean

wash
10-05-2011, 2:02 PM
This has probably already been said in some way or another but here is my take:

Would an anti say "I'm against gun rights"?

Would an anti say "I'm against civil rights"?

I think they would say the first but not the second.

When we call our civil rights "civil rights", people that are interested in liberty and freedom start asking the question "Are 'gun rights' civil rights?" and if they do the research they will find the answer is YES.

Talking about our civil rights is all about getting people to ask the right questions and learn about the issue rather than relying on emotional arguments and sacrificing liberty for fake security.

Be on the right side of our civil rights battle!

bwiese
10-05-2011, 2:15 PM
This has probably already been said in some way or another but here is my take:

Would an anti say "I'm against gun rights"?

Would an anti say "I'm against civil rights"?

I think they would say the first but not the second.



Yup.

In the 2010 Oakland city Council meetings, the LCAVers and Bradyites hid in the corner and refused to stand up & acknowledge that it was a right. Oaklander asked all that believed RKBA was a civil right to stand up in support, and it was clear the Bradys were chagrined.

dantodd
10-05-2011, 2:24 PM
@ Dantodd

I know exactly what I did.

I still see no reason to "generalize" 2A rights. I may very well be a 2A activist but that does not mean I will agree with other 2A activist opinions on other civil rights. This is the only reason I will only consider myself a 2A activist as opposed to a blanket civil rights activist. I think you understand what I mean

Sadly the only way to interpret that is to say that you are anti-civil rights in other areas. You are no friend of the constitution if you pick and choose which civil rights you support. It makes one no better than a gun grabber if they oppose other civil rights. Civil rights are all equal and need to be defended.

To paraphrase Alan Gura, The supreme court has decided it is a civil right, that means you can't legislate against it. If you don't like that then Amend that constitution. While this was in reference to 2A rights it applies equally to ALL civil rights. If you don't like gay folks having equal rights then don't try to pass laws restricting their freedom because, like gun rights, being a civil right takes that option off the table. If you really want to stop gay people from getting married, black people from marrying white folk or women from having abortions then amend the constitution.

As for me, I'll keep supporting each of those rights and more. I think the founding fathers and their descendents did a damn fine job creating a constitution and I'm not in a hurry to amend it, especially to further restrict individual freedom.

chris12
10-05-2011, 2:39 PM
I think the time/context should dictate if someone should use gun rights or civil rights.


This has probably already been said in some way or another but here is my take:

Would an anti say "I'm against gun rights"?

Would an anti say "I'm against civil rights"?

I think they would say the first but not the second.
People who are against abortion do not say "I'm against choice" just as people who are for abortion do not say "I'm against life". Most people here disagree with MAIG, but wouldn't say they are 'for illegal guns'. PR is important, but it isn't everything.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 2:40 PM
Sadly the only way to interpret that is to say that you are anti-civil rights in other areas. You are no friend of the constitution if you pick and choose which civil rights you support. It makes one no better than a gun grabber if they oppose other civil rights. Civil rights are all equal and need to be defended.

To paraphrase Alan Gura, The supreme court has decided it is a civil right, that means you can't legislate against it. If you don't like that then Amend that constitution. While this was in reference to 2A rights it applies equally to ALL civil rights. If you don't like gay folks having equal rights then don't try to pass laws restricting their freedom because, like gun rights, being a civil right takes that option off the table. If you really want to stop gay people from getting married, black people from marrying white folk or women from having abortions then amend the constitution.

As for me, I'll keep supporting each of those rights and more. I think the founding fathers and their descendents did a damn fine job creating a constitution and I'm not in a hurry to amend it, especially to further restrict individual freedom.

Oh come on now, I never said i was against civil rights. I said my interpretation of those rights my differ from others in the forum.

HMMM where did i see that? The problem with democrats is they are against guns and the problem with republicans is they are against rights? Or something like that?

For instance i am all for the 1a. Does that mean i think a religious group should have the right to line up at a soldiers funeral and lambaste him for being in that war as his family is trying to bury him? I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT! Some do.

This is why i try to pick and choose how i define "rights" in my life. Everyone has variations and opinions.


Hey if you want to call my anti civil rights thats OK! I think you can say the same thing about every president, supreme court justice, governor, and all the way down to plumber, electrician and drywall guy:)

curtisfong
10-05-2011, 2:47 PM
For instance i am all for the 1a. Does that mean i think a religious group should have the right to line up at a soldiers funeral and lambaste him for being in that war as his family is trying to bury him? I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT! Some do.


So if they don't have that right, the government can pass laws prohibiting them from speaking?

POLICESTATE
10-05-2011, 2:48 PM
Gun rights = Civil rights. I like! :thumbsup:

taperxz
10-05-2011, 2:50 PM
If i am so wrong, i think we should ask Kes, the owner of this site to perhaps change the name of this 2A section from the, 2nd Amend. Related Legal & Political Discussion to, Civil rights and Related Legal & Political Discussion.

Of course i am being a little sarcastic. Point is i am here for the 2A. Not to be an activist for other rights. There are other people that are doing that.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 2:51 PM
So if they don't have that right, the government can pass laws prohibiting them from speaking?

Sure they can speak. Why do this AT the funeral site though?

curtisfong
10-05-2011, 3:00 PM
Sure they can speak. Why do this AT the funeral site though?

We're discussing civil rights, which are those rights that the government can't restrict with laws.

Your question has nothing to do with civil rights.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 3:03 PM
We're discussing civil rights, which are those rights that the government can't restrict with laws.

Your question has nothing to do with civil rights.

Obviously you have no clue as to what i am talking about. I am referring to a Supreme Court Civil rights case in regards to what i posted earlier about a religious group protesting the war at a fallen soldiers grave site DURING the actual funeral.

dantodd
10-05-2011, 3:04 PM
For instance i am all for the 1a. Does that mean i think a religious group should have the right to line up at a soldiers funeral and lambaste him for being in that war as his family is trying to bury him? I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT! Some do.

If you don't support the right of people to say things that most of us find offensive why do you want people to support your right to own a gun that many/most people find offensive? Such as a "Saturday night special" or an "assault weapon?"

Don't you see that it is a 2-way street.

How is opposing civil right A different than opposing civil right B?

If you don't like what the Westboro Baptist Church is doing then work to change the constitution. But remember, when you start messing with our founding documents you open the same path to others who might not like a right that you find dear. That is one of the things that Vice mayor Griffith got right in admitting that he finds gun ownership offensive but voted with us because he recognized that to support only right he wants to exercise is hypocritical.

Do you actually care what the Supreme Court rules? If you refuse to accept the rule of law why would you demand others do the same?

curtisfong
10-05-2011, 3:10 PM
Obviously you have no clue as to what i am talking about. I am referring to a Supreme Court Civil rights case in regards to what i posted earlier about a religious group protesting the war at a fallen soldiers grave site DURING the actual funeral.

And? Can the government pass laws to restrict speech, or not? Did SCOTUS decide correctly, or not? Saying a funeral should be an exception means the government can pass laws regarding time, place, and manner of free speech.

What kind of legislation would have to be passed to prevent Westboro from speaking at a funeral?

taperxz
10-05-2011, 3:11 PM
If you don't support the right of people to say things that most of us find offensive why do you want people to support your right to own a gun that many/most people find offensive? Such as a "Saturday night special" or an "assault weapon?"

Don't you see that it is a 2-way street.

How is opposing civil right A different than opposing civil right B?

If you don't like what the Westboro Baptist Church is doing then work to change the constitution. But remember, when you start messing with our founding documents you open the same path to others who might not like a right that you find dear. That is one of the things that Vice mayor Griffith got right in admitting that he finds gun ownership offensive but voted with us because he recognized that to support only right he wants to exercise is hypocritical.

Do you actually care what the Supreme Court rules? If you refuse to accept the rule of law why would you demand others do the same?

I certainly do understand what your point is and for the most part i do agree. I also think there is a huge difference between owning a firearm of any kind and being lawful and the church shouting their views on the war but directing that message to the family of the fallen soldier who is trying to bury him.

I guess the best hypothetical would be if you decided to take your AR/AK over to the same grave site and obnoxiously start shooting it at headstones while the funeral is in progress. Not trying to be inflammatory, JMO

dantodd
10-05-2011, 3:20 PM
I certainly do understand what your point is and for the most part i do agree. I also think there is a huge difference between owning a firearm of any kind and being lawful and the church shouting their views on the war but directing that message to the family of the fallen soldier who is trying to bury him.

I guess the best hypothetical would be if you decided to take your AR/AK over to the same grave site and obnoxiously start shooting it at headstones while the funeral is in progress. Not trying to be inflammatory, JMO

My point is you are basing what should be legal and illegal on your "feelings" and that is exactly what we don't want fence sitters to do. It is easy for non-gun owning fence sitters to simply decide "I feel like guns are scary so let's outlaw them." We want them to think about what it means to strip someone of an enumerated constitutional right.

I really do want you to answer my question though. What is the difference between your own beliefs on Westboro Baptist church and anti-gunners position on gun-rights? They were both decided by SCOTUS to be protected civil rights. If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?

taperxz
10-05-2011, 3:30 PM
My point is you are basing what should be legal and illegal on your "feelings" and that is exactly what we don't want fence sitters to do. It is easy for non-gun owning fence sitters to simply decide "I feel like guns are scary so let's outlaw them." We want them to think about what it means to strip someone of an enumerated constitutional right.

I really do want you to answer my question though. What is the difference between your own beliefs on Westboro Baptist church and anti-gunners position on gun-rights? They were both decided by SCOTUS to be protected civil rights. If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?

OK let me give it a shot here, (no pun intended)

We certainly can say what we want when we want for the most part. Westboro certainly has the right to congregate as a group. We as gun owners also have a right to keep and bear arms.

Should Westboro have the right to display or rally at a private event? NO! (It was ruled that Westboro had to follow the rules of the local government to get permission to assemble at these funerals and follow those laws) Thats why they now have assemble so many yards away from the actual funeral now where before they didn't.

Just like you or i don't have a right to bring our firearm into a private residence if the owner does not allow it.

There are rules and regulations for even the most basic rights in this country whether it be the 1A or 2A the Supreme Court even says this.

chris12
10-05-2011, 3:40 PM
If you can't support one how can you ever condemn someone else for treating another SCOTUS decision with equal disregard?
Is there really anyone here who thinks all SCOTUS decisions are correct? Even if you throw out the ones where they (or an amendment) have already overturned (Dred Scott) it you still have some that don't deserve support. Slaugherhouse? Wickard?

I think Westboro was decided correctly, but just because SCOTUS decides something doesn't mean everyone should agree.

dantodd
10-05-2011, 3:42 PM
[/B]

OK let me give it a shot here, (no pun intended)

We certainly can say what we want when we want for the most part. Westboro certainly has the right to congregate as a group. We as gun owners also have a right to keep and bear arms.

Should Westboro have the right to display or rally at a private event? NO! (It was ruled that Westboro had to follow the rules of the local government to get permission to assemble at these funerals and follow those laws) Thats why they now have assemble so many yards away from the actual funeral now where before they didn't.

Just like you or i don't have a right to bring our firearm into a private residence if the owner does not allow it.

There are rules and regulations for even the most basic rights in this country whether it be the 1A or 2A the Supreme Court even says this.

(I realize why you think that what Westboro is doing is wrong, that isn't my point though I could argue that case with you as well)

My point is that the Supreme Court has said that Westboro's activities are protected. The Supreme Court has said that private ownership (and bearing for self-defense in the event of confrontation) of firearms is protected.

If you are going to demand legislators and others accept Heller even though they may not like it why would you refuse to accept Westboro even though you don't like it?

If some city/state tried to stop Westboro in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling I wouldn't expect you to protest or file a lawsuit but I also wouldn't expect you (if you are a friend of the constitution and believe in the rule of law) to defend such laws.

The test of our commitment to the rights of others is not our willingness to defend those who exercise the same rights we enjoy but rather our willingness to defend those who exercise rights we find repugnant.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 3:52 PM
(I realize why you think that what Westboro is doing is wrong, that isn't my point though I could argue that case with you as well)

My point is that the Supreme Court has said that Westboro's activities are protected. The Supreme Court has said that private ownership (and bearing for self-defense in the event of confrontation) of firearms is protected.

If you are going to demand legislators and others accept Heller even though they may not like it why would you refuse to accept Westboro even though you don't like it?

If some city/state tried to stop Westboro in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling I wouldn't expect you to protest or file a lawsuit but I also wouldn't expect you (if you are a friend of the constitution and believe in the rule of law) to defend such laws.

The test of our commitment to the rights of others is not our willingness to defend those who exercise the same rights we enjoy but rather our willingness to defend those who exercise rights we find repugnant.

And i agree with you! "I" am of the belief that all situations "can" merit different interpretations which in turn can be subjected to different forms of rights according to the constitution.

IMO Westboro, was and inflammatory action, 1A protected or not. The Supreme Court did subject them to the local restrictions! Thats probably one of the reasons they are not assembling at the funerals any more.

The 2A which is a right to own and bear, can only be seen as inflammatory if one were to misuse the firearm they bear. I guess thats the only way i can describe what i was trying to convey.

For whats its worth: The 2A is a Civil right and i don't think anyone here should not convey that to others.:D

wash
10-05-2011, 3:56 PM
We can't win if we are hypocrites.

If we claim our second amendment civil rights we are going to have to bite our tongue a little when things like the Westboro's come up.

The Westboro's are just one of the smaller prices we pay for freedom.

You can't pick and choose the civil rights you want without earning that hypocrite title.

You can want to punch a Westboro in the face and still respect their first amendment rights. That's just not being perfect.

taperxz
10-05-2011, 4:04 PM
We can't win if we are hypocrites.

If we claim our second amendment civil rights we are going to have to bite our tongue a little when things like the Westboro's come up.

The Westboro's are just one of the smaller prices we pay for freedom.

You can't pick and choose the civil rights you want without earning that hypocrite title.

You can want to punch a Westboro in the face and still respect their first amendment rights. That's just not being perfect.

Absolutely!! No one wants to be hypocritical, especially when when one person disagrees with the work one is doing (MAIG) and thinking it is a waste of time as opposed to solving violence in some other city that has little to do with the 2A. No no hyprocrisy there at all.

oaklander
10-06-2011, 12:00 AM
Quick addendum. . .

Two things:

1) A little bird told me that a VERY esteemed place of higher education will likely be doing a seminar on gun rights AS civil rights.

2) In Oakland, even the mainline groups (some of which have been around since the 1970's) are pretty much welcoming me with open arms. The reason is that I introduce myself as a civil rights person. I kind of wanted to be one of those folks in the 1960's who was fighting for racial equality. I never thought the race thing was fair, or even made sense.

I was born too late to be a part of the initial fights in that battle. But a lot of gun control came out of BACKLASHES AGAINST minorities (as a result of fear). Remember who signed the Mulford Act?

NOW, I am not some liberal, or conservative, or ANYTHING. I am poor because I do mostly this stuff and I am too stupid to figure out how to monetize it in an ethical fashion. So I stay poor (but I have FUN!) I am also not a leader. At work, they just kind of let me work by myself, and I guess tacitly support what I am doing. BUT - my gift, if I have one - is that I can kind of intuit how things parse out politically.

Right now, people ARE waking up - and they ARE realizing that we are the good guys and gals here. This is an amazing thing, and it makes what we all do very meaningful.

LOOK:

I do not like things that are stupid, unfair, and which hurt our country. Most rational people feel the same way I do. It is called "common sense" - and I am starting to see more of it in Bay Area government. We can fix this up here in NorCal, and you all are going to be part of it.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2011, 12:06 AM
As most of you know, I am now doing actual politics in Oakland. That means I am meeting with community leaders, doing photo ops, and all the other stuff you read about in political books, or something.

WELL, now I know WHY we do these things. Our MAIN "thing in life" is to achieve our goal (gun rights and defense rights) by getting people to LIKE US. The reason people LIKE US is that most rational people either own guns (and are clear supporters), or are slightly in favor of guns anyways (since they have common sense).

Rational people have a general tendancy to REALLY like the entire concept of right and wrong. And "rights" are called "rights" because THEY ARE RIGHT. Simple english AND math in that little equation!

I can tell you all from experience that I get a better reception with policy makers when I introduce myself as a civil rights person - AND NOT as a "gun rights" person. I do not know why this is, but it does not matter. I now introduce myself as a civil rights person.

Remember, civil rights is NOT a partisan issue!

Anyways, I know I am just "the BBQ guy" - but I am hoping people can start calling us what we REALLY ARE - civil rights advocates.


Sent from my Maxi-Pad.


That's funny; I just had a similar discussion today.... I told a guy that the gun groups have been filing civil rights lawsuits, and the country boy I was talking to said "now you sound like a liberal.... that's all they do is talk about civil rights...."

I explained that thanks to Heller and other cases.... gun rights ARE civil rights. Much of the legal precedent lost in cases like Rowe v Wade has set the groundwork for the second amendment. Any previous case that solidified enumerated personal liberties, and the limited process by which they can be thwarted, set the ground rules for the second. After all, what applies to one right, should apply to all rights.

oaklander
10-06-2011, 12:21 AM
As we move forward, some opposition will come from strange places.

Do you remember Johnny The Jet Boy? He is CEO of a company in Antelope Valley, and I guess he "knows people." He seemed to have the idea that only certain, special people should have guns. The way I see it, if you are fairly law abiding, and NOT dangerous, then why should you NOT be able to own a defensive firearm?

We ran him off the forum. But you will see people like that from time to time. They are also known as people who will never be able to run for public office. The only reason I can EVEN think of it is because my views are correct in every sense: morally, legally, ethically, and commonsense-ally.

;-)

But there ARE people out there who appear to have ZERO moral basis upon which to base their views.




Sent from my Maxi-Pad.

ivanimal
10-06-2011, 12:29 AM
We will always be singled out of groups for fighting for gun rights, Not many would exclude a civil rights fighter. Civil rights it is.

Civil rights they are.

oaklander
10-06-2011, 12:34 AM
We will always be singled out of groups for fighting for gun rights, Not many would exclude a civil rights fighter. Civil rights it is.

Civil rights they are.

Word!
:D