PDA

View Full Version : What Are The Principles Of Our Civil Rights Movement?


oaklander
04-15-2012, 11:48 AM
Have "we" ever actually sat down and all agreed on some principles?

I don't think we have. I do remember a thread about a year ago where I was trying to come up with slogans. I think "gun rights are civil rights" was one of them, and I have been pushing it now for nearly a year.

I know I didn't come up with it, but I think I may have helped people see that "it" is absolutely true.

NOW!!!!

We should come up with FIVE principles that we ALL AGREE ON. The reason for this is that the principles help drive the policy.

I didn't get this idea from a pro-gun person, BTW. I got the idea from someone who used to work for Brady, and who shall remain nameless. In fact, we are doing the same thing in the Oakland anti-violence movement, and you can expect to see exactly FIVE principles being promulgated in the next few months. You will see them in media and press, and in written materials connected to peace events.

The reason that we are doing this is that it allows differing groups to agree to work together. As long as they agree on the basic principles, then they are part of our team. I know it is kind of weird, but I am actually one of the people who is setting grassroots policy on the anti-violence issue in Oakland. The reason is that the people who do things here like what I did with our civil rights movement "here."

Rights is rights. Period.

SO - let's come up with FIVE principles that we agree on.

The first I might suggest is that:

"We oppose no person, only ideas."

Here are some others, and I guess I will put them in a poll, too. . .

"We work out of love for our rights, and not out of hate for our opposition."

"We reject violence as a way to push an agenda."

"We agree that all people should have the same rights, unless they have lost those rights through conscious actions on their own part."

"We believe that our rights existed before the first document was written, and that such rights inhere from our human existence, and not from the government."

"We believe that armed societies are safer societies, in this violent world."

"We believe that our civil rights should not depend on fickle partisan politics."

"We believe that our rights are based on universal principles, and should never rely on a person, or a group."

"We have only one enemy, and that is our own discord."

"We have only one friend, and that is our own unity."

etc. . . .

dantodd
04-15-2012, 12:04 PM
I like many of your ideas. These 2 are based in yours.

1) Self-defense knows no racial, economic, or political bounds, it is a universal human right.

2) arming peaceable people reduces violence.

yellowfin
04-15-2012, 12:06 PM
Here's one for you: "The ability to preserve one's life, property, rights, and well being are essential to basic human dignity. The deprivation or obstruction thereof is a crime against the very humanity of that person, rendering them effectively a prisoner or a slave. We hold this to be unacceptable and unjustifiable treatment of any human being not lawfully convicted of a crime of serious injury to another person via due process of law.

dantodd
04-15-2012, 12:09 PM
We work to expand rights for all and never to restrict rights of others.

sreiter
04-15-2012, 12:12 PM
As for me, I believe in our rights as our founders intended. An I take their words to heart. Thomas Jefferson is surely turning over in his grave.

I know it's politically correct to talk about non-violence, and I'm not advocating any....but do you think the founders would've taken all the crap the government is doing? I honestly believe the revolution was started over much less abuse of civil liberties then we've experienced over the last 10 years.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:13 PM
Awesome guys - keep them coming!!!!

We can start to distill them down into five or so - then we just keep distilling and getting feedback. When this is done, we can create some sort of platform document, or website.

The idea is that if we agree on the basics, we can move really fast and smoothly, and if we DO NOT - then we keep getting into policy arguments over real basic stuff. . .

We have the exact same problem in the local Oakland stuff. The person who suggested this to me is basically a marcom ninja, and is behind HUGE messaging campaigns. Moving forward, MOST of our stuff (other than the litigation, which is always #1) is going to be starting to fall into messaging and media. SO - what we are literally doing is refining our outward messaging to something that we can all agree on, more or less.

Does that even make sense?

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:16 PM
As for me, I believe in our rights as our founders intended. An I take their words to heart. Thomas Jefferson is surely turning over in his grave.

I know it's politically correct to talk about non-violence, and I'm not advocating any....but do you think the founders would've taken all the crap the government is doing? I honestly believe the revolution was started over much less abuse of civil liberties then we've experienced over the last 10 years.

I studied AT LENGTH, how violence was used in the 1960's. I also studied the backlash against it.

That, combined with me being a Christian, pretty much makes me believe in my own heart and soul that violence begets violence, and that violence invites oppression, and that violence kills souls from the inside.

I know that some people see glamour in violence, but I live in Deep East Oakland, and all I see is pain in violence.

That being said, it is my hope that our country remembers that we are a NATION OF LAWS, and that we work to change the system by BECOMING THE SYSTEM. Never by destabilizing it. That is what I did not like about "Occupy" - they were full of sound and fury, but their actions signified nothing. Change happens within each of us, and if we want to change the world around us, we JOIN IT. We DO NOT "fight it."

Once we JOIN the system, we work WITHIN the system, as our Founders intended, to change it.

Mad Scotsman
04-15-2012, 12:19 PM
I like:
We believe that our rights existed before the first document was written,
We believe that armed societies are safer societies, in this violent world.
No gubment has the right to take these away.
I agree with "I honestly believe the revolution was started over much less abuse of civil liberties then we've experienced over the last 10 years.

Lacunacraft
04-15-2012, 12:26 PM
I just voted and I think all of these are absolutely essential in defining our civil rights movement. I can't think of any i would like to add, but this is definitely a great start. thanks for all your work Oaklander!

ccmc
04-15-2012, 12:28 PM
We work to expand rights for all and never to restrict rights of others.

What exactly is a right? Certain rights are enumerated in the COTUS and its amendments. Others are implied which is often where controversy arises. The 2A is crystal clear however.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:34 PM
What exactly is a right? Certain rights are enumerated in the COTUS and its amendments. Others are implied which is often where controversy arises. The 2A is crystal clear however.

A right is something that a free person owns. That is the traditional definition under the Common Law.

For example, property has been described as a "bundle of rights."

BUT - you only own a right if you are alive. And the right to live is why we have the right of defense. Guys and gals, we are SERIOUSLY fighting for the most important right.

That is why sometimes I get real serious about things. I see, with MY OWN EYES, how taking away the right of defense has harmed Oakland. I literally KNOW people who have died because of our screwed up laws here. THAT is how important this shizzle is. Like I tell people, we are not stamp collectors (no offense to stamp collectors).

The point is that this is ABSOLUTELY serious. Absolutely hard core, and absolutely essential. This work we ALL do.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:37 PM
I like many of your ideas. These 2 are based in yours.

1) Self-defense knows no racial, economic, or political bounds, it is a universal human right.

2) arming peaceable people reduces violence.

I like! Simple and concise.

hoffmang
04-15-2012, 12:39 PM
I have a couple of places where I think there are some gotchas.


"We work out of love for our rights, and not out of hate for our opposition."
I worry that implicit in this is that there is not room for us to understand evil behind some of our opposition. Statism keeps failing and killing millions - even in the last 100 years - yet some of our opposition have never met centralized anti liberty ideas they don't like. I have no problem having hate for those who are truly evil.


"We have only one enemy, and that is our own discord."

"We have only one friend, and that is our own unity."

If everyone was right then no one is wrong. The truth is that we should all support strategies and people who can succeed, but following a false prophet under the banner of unity - well, I'm sure Mao wanted unity too. Pol pot... I know of one California supposed gun rights group that uses "Unity" to hide their incompetence.

The Founders were a radical minority that lots of people didn't want to follow. They were right and the vast majority of the population of the 13 colonies were wrong. Unity is nice, but apocryphal lemmings have unity as they all plummet to their death over a cliff.

-Gene

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:40 PM
Here's one for you: "The ability to preserve one's life, property, rights, and well being are essential to basic human dignity. The deprivation or obstruction thereof is a crime against the very humanity of that person, rendering them effectively a prisoner or a slave. We hold this to be unacceptable and unjustifiable treatment of any human being not lawfully convicted of a crime of serious injury to another person via due process of law.

That would be a good preamble to the rights document that I think we will be creating.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 12:45 PM
I have a couple of places where I think there are some gotchas.


I worry that implicit in this is that there is not room for us to understand evil behind some of our opposition. Statism keeps failing and killing millions - even in the last 100 years - yet some of our opposition have never met centralized anti liberty ideas they don't like. I have no problem having hate for those who are truly evil.



If everyone was right then no one is wrong. The truth is that we should all support strategies and people who can succeed, but following a false prophet under the banner of unity - well, I'm sure Mao wanted unity too. Pol pot... I know of one California supposed gun rights group that uses "Unity" to hide their incompetence.

The Founders were a radical minority that lots of people didn't want to follow. They were right and the vast majority of the population of the 13 colonies were wrong. Unity is nice, but apocryphal lemmings have unity as they all plummet to their death over a cliff.

-Gene

Agreed on all points - and in fact, I know it's strange coming from "me" - but I have been telling people to NOT follow prophets. Right now, everyone is carrying around the David Kennedy book here in Oakland, but he is only a person, with human failings. I have also been seriously trying to get people to see that anything that involves following a person is doomed to failure, since people all fail (because people are human).

People thought "Batts" could save us, people thought "Quan" could save us, people think "Zimring" can save us. We can only save ourselves.

I actually am meeting with our city administrator soon, and I will likely be talking about something related to the above. The ONE THING I am going to say is that anything that involves "prophets" is doomed to fail.

I think that there is an appropriate type of "disgust" for evil. It is different than hate.

ETA: Sorry to mix the two so much here on the forums (Oakland and rights). But they are really the same thing. There is a saying in the 12 step programs, and it is "principles before personalities." I know I have a large ego, and a large personality, BUT - the second I start thinking this is about me, I will simply stop.

Much respect here, Gene. You know me, and you know I am saying what I really think. At least right this second.

Kevin

timmyb21
04-15-2012, 12:51 PM
I liked all of them.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 1:01 PM
I just voted and I think all of these are absolutely essential in defining our civil rights movement. I can't think of any i would like to add, but this is definitely a great start. thanks for all your work Oaklander!

Thank you!!!

Like I tell people, I am just kind of autistic in that I am pretty good at seeing what directions things are going. I think that our country is on a path that can end good, or can end bad.

AND - to kind of riff off what Gene was saying, I actually think that one of our problems IS the "prophet problem." As each shiny new person comes along, we tend to get different visions of what our rights "are." AND these are all based on personality.

Underneath all of the sturm und drang, there has never been an honest discussion of what we are actually fighting FOR. By agreeing on certain basic principles, we actually eviscerate the strategic problems that are created by being a movement based on personalities, and we replace it with being a movement of principles.

NOW - that is not to say that there are not visionaries. But the movement is actually larger than that. Especially now. It is growing exponentially, and needs to be based on clear morals and vision.

Again, let me explain something about morals. "Morals" does not mean that you are perfect. Far from it. Having morals means that you admit that you ARE NOT perfect. Morals and ethics are aspirational, and just like how people should aspire, our movement should aspire.

Good people are drawn TO the good, and away from the bad. Good people have disgust for evil. These are very basic ideas that NEED to be talked about. if we do not talk about the most simple of things, how can we even address the most complicated of things?

WE MUST HAVE A CLEAR MORAL VISION.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 1:14 PM
Agreed on all points - and in fact, I know it's strange coming from "me" - but I have been telling people to NOT follow prophets. Right now, everyone is carrying around the David Kennedy book here in Oakland, but he is only a person, with human failings. I have also been seriously trying to get people to see that anything that involves following a person is doomed to failure, since people all fail (because people are human).

People thought "Batts" could save us, people thought "Quan" could save us, people think "Zimring" can save us. We can only save ourselves.

I actually am meeting with our city administrator soon, and I will likely be talking about something related to the above. The ONE THING I am going to say is that anything that involves "prophets" is doomed to fail.

I think that there is an appropriate type of "disgust" for evil. It is different than hate.

ETA: Sorry to mix the two so much here on the forums (Oakland and rights). But they are really the same thing. There is a saying in the 12 step programs, and it is "principles before personalities." I know I have a large ego, and a large personality, BUT - the second I start thinking this is about me, I will simply stop.

Much respect here, Gene. You know me, and you know I am saying what I really think. At least right this second.

Kevin

Let me follow up on this, just so everything is very clear. There *was* talk of creating an anti-violence czar here in Oakland. The implication is that it would be me, or someone like me. I declined.

I rarely post this crap on the internet. But I just want people to know how connected I am to the issue here.

AGAIN - I declined.

The reason is that as a person arises, the person creates opposition (this is a Daoist concept). But good principles and ideas are harder to oppose, since they exist without anything else. They exist on their own, not subject to opposition, just debate.

I hope this is clear to people now why I am doing this, and what my "role" is. If anything, just think of me as the jester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/WillSommers_engraving_300dpi.jpg/220px-WillSommers_engraving_300dpi.jpg

753X0
04-15-2012, 1:22 PM
"All rights are property rights. The measure of an individual's ability to determine the disposition of their property and their life is a measure of their ownership of their own self, and, by extension, a measure of their freedom."

oaklander
04-15-2012, 1:26 PM
"All rights are property rights. The measure of an individual's ability to determine the disposition of their property and their life is a measure of their ownership of their own self, and, by extension, a measure of their freedom."

I like, and this is consistent with the big split in our current thinking in this country. We are a country of property rights, basically.

Ownership of property was the difference between a vassal and a squire, back in the day. Modern socialist thinking would like the state to basically "own" all types of property, including rights. But rights are not owned by the state, they are owned by people.

Again, these are very basic concepts that some people don't even think about. The key here is that by thinking about these things, we find new allies.

BUT THE ALLIES HAVE TO LITERALLY "BE" GOOD, HONEST, MORAL PEOPLE.

Can you guys and gals imagine how f-ed up we would be if we had shown support for Occupy. Those people *may* have had one or two decent ideas, but the vast majority of them are simply full of hate. We must never devolve into a hate movement of any kind.

I do not know about you folks, but I LOVE MY COUNTRY. Our family has been here about 200 years, and WE LOVE IT HERE. That is why we work, as a team, to make it a better place. Again, out of love. And like Gene implied, disgust for what is wrong.

Tack
04-15-2012, 2:16 PM
We all have the right of self-defense. Now we are simply discussing the means.

ccmc
04-15-2012, 2:24 PM
A right is something that a free person owns. That is the traditional definition under the Common Law.

For example, property has been described as a "bundle of rights."

Still ambiguous. Even property rights may differ significantly based on the type of property owned. For example I live on close to 80 acres. So there's a lot of stuff I can do at virtually any time day or night that somebody living on an urban lot would not be able to do. I'm not even going to get into the controversy of implied social rights. None of this has anything to do with the RKBA which is explicitly specified in the 2A to the COTUS.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 2:43 PM
Still ambiguous. Even property rights may differ significantly based on the type of property owned. For example I live on close to 80 acres. So there's a lot of stuff I can do at virtually any time day or night that somebody living on an urban lot would not be able to do. I'm not even going to get into the controversy of implied social rights. None of this has anything to do with the RKBA which is explicitly specified in the 2A to the COTUS.

No.

If you base the right ONLY on the document, then you are at the whim of every legal decision. The decisions should REFLECT the right, not DEFINE the right.

This is subtle, but VERY important.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 2:45 PM
We all have the right of self-defense. Now we are simply discussing the means.

Yes, and like we communicated on FB - it is simply amazing to me that some people (http://californianfatrust.com/civil-rights-leaders-thomason-and-hoffman-speak-to-visiting-european-dignitaries-about-american-civil-rights/) do not even think we have the right to defend ourselves by any means at all.

In Canada, there is a man who is facing serious jail time for defending his family against people who were literally firebombing his house. He followed all laws, and the DA up there is trying to make up new ones to send him to jail.

Some people who work for our own government simply DO NOT like the idea of people defending themselves. They want a monopoly on that, period. They may hold elected, appointed, or hired positions. But they are not true Americans, at all. To me, the little "talking points" that the Europeans "spouted (http://californianfatrust.com/civil-rights-leaders-thomason-and-hoffman-speak-to-visiting-european-dignitaries-about-american-civil-rights/)" last year sound EXACTLY like some of the people right now, who simply can't wrap their mind around the idea that humans have an innate right to defend self.

There IS a CLEARLY AMERICAN way of thinking on this issue.

ccmc
04-15-2012, 2:50 PM
No.

If you base the right ONLY on the document, then you are at the whim of every legal decision. The decisions should REFLECT the right, not DEFINE the right.

This is subtle, but VERY important.

I understand the difference, but most court decisions don't ie they DEFINE rather than REFLECT the right.

Don't take my nitpicking for disagreement with your desired outcome. I'm a pretty libertarian guy.

Wolfie_AR
04-15-2012, 2:57 PM
I have a couple of places where I think there are some gotchas........
-Gene

Well said Gene.

Thanks Oaklander for posting this.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 2:57 PM
I understand the difference, but most court decisions don't ie they DEFINE rather than REFLECT the right.

Don't take my nitpicking for disagreement with your desired outcome. I'm a pretty libertarian guy.

Yes, agreed on all points. . .

I think that we need to view the litigation and the grassroots at complementing each other. Each requires the other. That is why I like the taiiji symbol, since it means that we are all in this together.

I fully support the litigation, and like I have told people - I actually contribute money to CGF, even though I don't have any, and even though I do a lot of things for them for free to begin with. WE MUST win all litigation.

And what I am getting at here is "what are the underlying reasons FOR the litigation?"

Our strategy in CA is very clearly freedom based. And that is good. I also think that the real "thinkers" on this stuff have kind of come to the same conclusions that we have. I *think* what I am doing here is simply trying to hash out things that we all generally support, and also perhaps to remind us that the legal cases REFLECT a MUCH larger battle, in our courts, our polling places, our media, and in our own lives.

The battle is EXACTLY around the role of a free citizen in a constitutionally-based democracy. I know some of this stuff, but a lot, I do not. So that is why I am asking for help.

And I truly and honestly value your input.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 3:02 PM
Well said Gene.

Thanks Oaklander for posting this.

When I went to law school, I realized that there are people who are about 100 times smarter than me. They could read a case once, memorize it, then ace an exam on 2 hours sleep.

Um. . .

I can't do that!

SO - that is why I listen to people like Gene, and it's also why I listen to everyone. We all need to do this. The worst thing we can do is not listen.

These basic, underlying ideas about why we do what we do, seem to rarely get discussed. Everything devolves into convoluted conversations about personalities, media, elections, and past wrongs.

All of that stuff is what lawyers like to call churning. One thing is important: Goals.

What do we, as voters, as citizens, as humans - WANT? What is it that we really want from all of this?

Is it yet another "cool gun?" Or is it a restoration of the country?

I strongly believe that by getting back to basics, many of our current problems in this country can be solved. And "basics" literally MEANS BASICS.

SO - the question becomes - what ARE the "basics?" This might seem pointless, but please remember that this is an election year. I seem to recall that at least one presidential candidate is starting to run on a "gun rights as human rights" platform. What we say and do, matters. Seriously.

I also need to remind people that at least one Supreme Court Justice actually reads Calguns.net.

I guess I ALSO need to remind people that we actually ARE seen as a kind of political movement. Non-partisan at the core. A pure rights movement, for a country founded on rights.

Drivedabizness
04-15-2012, 3:05 PM
I really like Gene's comment and I understand your desire to be intolerant of "evil" instead of hating it.

But it's not enough to condemn or disavow evil - it must be resisted with any and all means necessary (the evil I'm talking about is infringement on people's rights).

The social compact can be very simply put:

We recognize the rights of individuals to pursue happiness to the extent that they do not harm others (no one said they couldn't annoy or even offend). We codify those things as laws that limit harmful behavior and specify sanctions for violations.

Much of our civil discord arises from people/interest groups attempting to leverage the power of government to impose their will on their fellow citizens - to achieve what most often could not be achieved at the ballot box. The fact that our form of government was designed to curtail the possibility of this happening and the extent that it happens anyway, can sometimes be very discouraging.

The people/groups who do that need to be called out for what they are.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 3:19 PM
I really like Gene's comment and I understand your desire to be intolerant of "evil" instead of hating it.

But it's not enough to condemn or disavow evil - it must be resisted with any and all means necessary (the evil I'm talking about is infringement on people's rights).

The social compact can be very simply put:

We recognize the rights of individuals to pursue happiness to the extent that they do not harm others (no one said they couldn't annoy or even offend). We codify those things as laws that limit harmful behavior and specify sanctions for violations.

Much of our civil discord arises from people/interest groups attempting to leverage the power of government to impose their will on their fellow citizens - to achieve what most often could not be achieved at the ballot box. The fact that our form of government was designed to curtail the possibility of this happening and the extent that it happens anyway, can sometimes be very discouraging.

The people/groups who do that need to be called out for what they are.

Yes, I am more "New Testament" on thoughts about evil vs. love. That being said, I am starting to like some of the OT as well.

Also, on a more esoteric level, there's a great book by Andrew DelBanco entitled "The Death of Satan." It is not about "the God stuff" at all, despite the title. It is about how we, as a country, have lost the entire concept of "evil."

First, it was seen as inhering in our own natures, then it was eviscerated and became an outside influence, then it was finally killed off. This is wrong, and our lack of comprehension around evil HAS hurt us.

When I get the late night phone calls from law abiding people who are now facing 10 years in jail because someone invoked some arcane law, as part of a personal dispute, I can literally "feel" the evil that inheres in our system right now. People make entire careers around essentially ending the lives of others. That in itself, is pure evil. The fact that they are paid by our own taxes just adds another level of evil on top of that.

Trust me, I hear you.

BUT - let me add that I am not talking about the people who enforce the laws. We need to think about why we have so many laws that actually don't do anything to stop crime, IN THE FIRST PLACE. And I need to remind people that I hang out with people who teach criminology at a post-graduate level, so it's not like I come up with these thoughts from reading USA Today or something.

I also know that sometimes it sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. I DO want us to work WITH law enforcement. And I can tell you that many of our fine officers have similar thinking around laws. They see with their own eyes how stupid many of these laws actually are. These fine men and women can become our strongest allies.

Whatever we are talking about is at a different level than the obvious, and it has to do with money, votes, media, and fear. Think about what motivates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKdU_xL4O8) the people who write the laws, who choose to prosecute, who "choose things."

TWO STEP PROCESS:

1) Think about what the choosers are choosing, and why.
2) BECOME A CHOOSER. By working WITHIN our great system to change it from inside.

choprzrul
04-15-2012, 3:53 PM
Principle 1: Inanimate objects can be neither good nor evil absent human interaction.

Principle 2: All rights are dependent upon the owner of those rights being alive and staying alive.

Principle 3: Governments are takers of rights, not grantors of rights.

Principle 4: Rights must be allowed to be exercised freely up to the point where the exercise thereof infringes upon the rights of another.

Principle 5: I am my brother's keeper. We are destined to be free together or individually enslaved.


...just a few random thoughts of a madman...

.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 3:54 PM
...just a few random thoughts of a madman...

.

LOL, join the club. I should be outside working on my tomatoes.

ETA: on the subject of "evil" - I have determined that snails ARE the embodiment of evil. They create a slow and slimy path of destruction!!!

sreiter
04-15-2012, 4:04 PM
I studied AT LENGTH, how violence was used in the 1960's. I also studied the backlash against it.

That, combined with me being a Christian, pretty much makes me believe in my own heart and soul that violence begets violence, and that violence invites oppression, and that violence kills souls from the inside.

I know that some people see glamour in violence, but I live in Deep East Oakland, and all I see is pain in violence.

That being said, it is my hope that our country remembers that we are a NATION OF LAWS, and that we work to change the system by BECOMING THE SYSTEM. Never by destabilizing it. That is what I did not like about "Occupy" - they were full of sound and fury, but their actions signified nothing. Change happens within each of us, and if we want to change the world around us, we JOIN IT. We DO NOT "fight it."

Once we JOIN the system, we work WITHIN the system, as our Founders intended, to change it.

I grew up in Newark NJ in the 1960's, so I'm with you in that regard.

While i believe in changing the system from within, that isn't always achievable. It worked for Gandhi, not so much for too many others, such as the Irish, or the US Colonies. For every step we take forward, the government enacts 10 more tyrannical laws.

As far as the founders wanting us to join the system, I don't think Thomas Jefferson had that in mind

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."


The Jews in 1930's Europe just went along. Imagine if there was a very large concerted effort of arm resistance to the Nuremberg laws

Capybara
04-15-2012, 4:13 PM
Oaklander, a bit OT here, but THANK YOU for helping us all put what is in our hearts, intentions and minds out into the world. It is really great of you to get behind this and help to crystallize our collective vision.

The message is so important these days.

nicki
04-15-2012, 5:08 PM
In my view, a person has no control over who their parents are, therefore we must emphasis that all humans should be equal under the law because if one person or group's rights are violated, then all of our rights are violated.

Our rights are only secure as our willingness to defend unpopular persons or groups who try to exercise their legitimate rights.

Rather than commit to non violence, we should commit to non agression. Violence is rarely the answer to our differences, but when it is the answer, it is the only answer and at that point it is needed badly.

Violent people are not rational, many are sociopaths whom we can't reason with.

Nicki

choprzrul
04-15-2012, 6:58 PM
In my view, a person has no control over who their parents are, therefore we must emphasis that all humans should be equal under the law because if one person or group's rights are violated, then all of our rights are violated.

Our rights are only secure as our willingness to defend unpopular persons or groups who try to exercise their legitimate rights.

Rather than commit to non violence, we should commit to non agression. Violence is rarely the answer to our differences, but when it is the answer, it is the only answer and at that point it is needed badly.

Violent people are not rational, many are sociopaths whom we can't reason with.

Nicki

My #'s 2, 4, & 5 should cover that nicely.

.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 7:17 PM
This is all good stuff!

Me and SierraApril decided to not go to Home Depot and get snail bait. Instead we went to a bookshop in Berkeley and I was able to find a rare history book about Oakland. The trippy thing is that I actually have met some of the people who are likely in that book.

The other trippy thing is that I wore my Gun Rights Are Civil Rights hoodie over there in Berkeley, and got nothing but compliments. This is what I am trying to tell people. There are large coalitions of people who are now understanding that we are more than just a bunch of guy and gals who want the "cool toys."

This is also why I have been pushing for us to act with a certain dignity (and that does not mean conformity).

ALSO - and I need to keep repeating this. I DO NOT always set policy. If anything, I usually just kind of observe things and report out what I see. I make broad suggestions, when I can. Right now, we are very much WINNING, and what I keep telling people is that we need to start thinking about what we want the right to look like 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years down the road. The landscape of the right will be determined by TWO things: (1) the court decisions, and (2) who we vote into office.

At this point, I can't tell if the court decisions drive public opinion, or vice-versa (I think it's actually symbiotic) - but public opinion/media is also a component here. See http://www.gunrightsarecivilrights.org/10032-about-10032.html (the section entitled "About the Grassroots Movement") for a description on how I think things work. This is not based on me reading Saul Alinsky. This is based on me watching how things happen. . . Maybe helping make some of those things happen. It is not theory, is the point. . . .

AND - if people DO NOT think we are winning - look at the letters here. Even 12 months ago, we NEVER would have seen this sort of support for our rights. Some of these people ARE part of our movement, and others are just people who think about things.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_20392158/talk-back-letters-april-14

Contrary to predictions, the latest tragedy is proving our point that we need to be able to defend ourselves.

SilverTauron
04-15-2012, 7:43 PM
Five?

That's too many.

Four?

You might forget a couple in a stressful moment.

Three? We all know that's a crowd.

Two? But then which one's better?

One? That's more like it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed



The Security of a Free State has a deeper meaning beyond just keeping the Canucks from invadin'. Is a man free when he has to look over his shoulder walking out of his home? Is a man free when he has to go about his day awaiting an attack on his person without the means to defend himself?

Chicago, as I lived there, fits this motto. Will Russia or an army of extraterrestrial robots invade the city? Very unlikely. It is almost certain however Ill witness or be the target of a criminal attack. Germans wont be landing troops or tanks on the 6000 block of North Sheridan, yet I was never any kind of secure -and thus not a free man-walking to and from my apartment building unarmed every night after an 8 hour work shift. How can someone be free, when any goblin with a firearm can demand the property and services of the law abiding at will?

This of course sets aside the truth that , as currently, the 2nd Amendment is enacted law in the United States Constitution.

Our goal is woefully simple:our civil right is already bound and protected by law. We must act to ensure that every office of government recognizes that, from the lowliest county Sheriff to the oak desks in the White House, the Legislature, and the Judiciary at every level.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 7:49 PM
No. It is not defined. That is why Gene keeps having to fly back East every so often to work with Alan. And why Alan might fly out here some day to work with Gene.

It is why lawyers all over the country are filing suits, why legislators in free states are literally striking down their own laws.

It is far from "defined."

What I am saying is that WE DEFINE IT.

And we already have, and we will.

The principles define the right, and like a majority of people who have answered the poll say: "the right exists before the paper."

NEVER make the mistake of defining a right by a court decision. And never make the mistake of defining a right by any sort of public policy analysis.

RIGHTS are RIGHTS because they exist above paper, and above policy wonks.

The founders ENUMERATED (named) the rights that WERE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

Five?

That's too many.

Four?

You might forget a couple in a stressful moment.

Three? We all know that's a crowd.

Two? But then which one's better?

One? That's more like it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed



The Security of a Free State has a deeper meaning beyond just keeping the Canucks from invadin'. Is a man free when he has to look over his shoulder walking out of his home? Is a man free when he has to go about his day awaiting an attack on his person without the means to defend himself?

Chicago, as I lived there, fits this motto. Will Russia or an army of extraterrestrial robots invade the city? Very unlikely. It is almost certain however Ill witness or be the target of a criminal attack. Germans wont be landing troops or tanks on the 6000 block of North Sheridan, yet I was never any kind of secure -and thus not a free man-walking to and from my apartment building unarmed every night after an 8 hour work shift. How can someone be free, when any goblin with a firearm can demand the property and services of the law abiding at will?

This of course sets aside the truth that , as currently, the 2nd Amendment is enacted law in the United States Constitution.

Our goal is woefully simple:our civil right is already bound and protected by law. We must act to ensure that every office of government recognizes that, from the lowliest county Sheriff to the oak desks in the White House, the Legislature, and the Judiciary at every level.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 8:00 PM
I grew up in Newark NJ in the 1960's, so I'm with you in that regard.

While i believe in changing the system from within, that isn't always achievable. It worked for Gandhi, not so much for too many others, such as the Irish, or the US Colonies. For every step we take forward, the government enacts 10 more tyrannical laws.

As far as the founders wanting us to join the system, I don't think Thomas Jefferson had that in mind

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."


The Jews in 1930's Europe just went along. Imagine if there was a very large concerted effort of arm resistance to the Nuremberg laws

The more I know, the more I listen, not talk - about certain things. I have met no person who does not agree with what you say.

ETA: when me and SierraApril were in Berkeley today, we were crossing the street. A young black man was staring at me, so I said "hi." He complimented me on a tattoo I have that says "Veritas." Then we started talking about movies, about God, about justice and truth, about prisons, and about the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum.

The things that we talk about. Fairness. Rights. The role of the state. Etc. . . ->>>> these are ALL things that are being talked about a lot these days. . .

Why do people think I can even DO the Oakland anti-violence stuff???

Most of the people I work with are far left. The reason that they don't run me out of town (I am a small "l" libertarian, in case anyone cares) is that they see our CORE beliefs as being RIGHTS BASED AND FREEDOM BASED. That is why I keep saying that we have more friends than we imagine. And they are good Americans. All of them. I don't agree with a lot of their views about other stuff. For example, I think we should save lives first, before we worry about saving a "tree," and common sense (to me, at least) things like that. But for the most part, we think along somewhat similar terms.

Even the "left" breaks down into people who don't like the nanny state, and those who want "momma state" to fix every problem for them. The latter folks, I avoid like the plague, since they are not rational (and I can tell, just talking to them).

This is EXACTLY WHY I KEEP SAYING THAT WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS, AND THE GOOD GALS. WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WANT A BETTER FUTURE FOR OUR COUNTRY, OUR FAMILIES, OUR TOWNS, AND OUR STATES. THIS IS ALSO WHY THE RIGHTS MOVEMENT SHOULD BE NON-PARTISAN.

nicki
04-15-2012, 8:20 PM
The purpose of a just government is to protect rights, when a government violates the rights of the people, then the people have the right for redress of grievances.

The first amendment gives us peaceable means to fix things with our government.

The second amendment recognizes that if our government becomes corrupt and destructive to the people, that the people maintain the means to restore a just order by force.

Our system of ordered liberty is dependent on the people restraining and controlling the government.

We talk about civil rights, but in order to have civil rights we must also have civil responsibility. Rights and responsiblities are interdependent on each other.

Nicki

yellowfin
04-15-2012, 8:31 PM
ETA: on the subject of "evil" - I have determined that snails ARE the embodiment of evil. They create a slow and slimy path of destruction!!!On the other hand, they're darn tasty when baked w/ butter, garlic, oregano, basil, parsley, shallots, and a tiny jot of Worcestershire. I've got three cans of them waiting to be cooked up to celebrate tax season ending and moving to a new, bigger home w/ my lovely wife.

SilverTauron
04-15-2012, 8:36 PM
No. It is not defined. That is why Gene keeps having to fly back East every so often to work with Alan. And why Alan might fly out here some day to work with Gene.

It is why lawyers all over the country are filing suits, why legislators in free states are literally striking down their own laws.

It is far from "defined."

What I am saying is that WE DEFINE IT.

And we already have, and we will.

The principles define the right, and like a majority of people who have answered the poll say: "the right exists before the paper."

NEVER make the mistake of defining a right by a court decision. And never make the mistake of defining a right by any sort of public policy analysis.

RIGHTS are RIGHTS because they exist above paper, and above policy wonks.

The founders ENUMERATED (named) the rights that WERE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT a court decision.

It is legal recognition of an inherent right. Therein lies our struggle, because we have a lot of people in power who say that indeed we have this "right", but for reasons X , Y , and Z, "we" need to fill out form A, write check to agency B, and pray it all gets processed for probable denial by date C.


The right , or the principles therein , is not the debate.Or even the core problem. What keeps Gene and Company employed is the fact that DESPITE the recognized law and the principles therein, agencies of government for a laundry list of reasons pretend that this core right either doesn't exist, doesn't apply, or shouldn't matter to them.

Solving this problem involves turning the culture around. Once upon a time, a man like me would be considered 3/5ths of a human. That infringement of a human right was culturally sanctioned also , until people in general in this nation realized this infringement and the cultural attitudes attached thereof had to go.


One day, people in New Jersey will realize that the right to Keep and Bear arms is not subject to their state's onerous regulations. One day, the cultures which sustain the anti-gun zones like New Jersey & D.C., among other places, will collapse under the weight of enlightened change....brought about by people like those on this forum, who bring about the truth and honesty of guns and rights to the uneducated masses.

THAT is the goal. We can debate mission statements until the servers crash, but practical application is whats key. This tide will not be turned in just the courts, or just the gun stores and editorials. It turns with every person who sees a gasbag like Schumer on TV and thinks " what the heck ?I went shooting with So-and-So, and his 17 round M&P wasn't an assault pistol."

When people see an AR-15 on TV and think 'Fun time with Joe Armalite' instead of 'Criminal tool of Destruction' , they'll remember that image next time some jackwagon tries to drop a gun control bill. It's going to happen, and quite frankly we always will have opportunist morons intent on roasting their Smore's over the ashes of our melting guns. With a population culturally knowledgeable of their rights, those same political opportunists' will be the ones roasting over the coals.;)

oaklander
04-15-2012, 8:37 PM
The purpose of a just government is to protect rights, when a government violates the rights of the people, then the people have the right for redress of grievances.

The first amendment gives us peaceable means to fix things with our government.

The second amendment recognizes that if our government becomes corrupt and destructive to the people, that the people maintain the means to restore a just order by force.

Our system of ordered liberty is dependent on the people restraining and controlling the government.

We talk about civil rights, but in order to have civil rights we must also have civil responsibility. Rights and responsiblities are interdependent on each other.

Nicki

I can't comment intelligently on this. The only thing I will say is that a true martial arts master never has to use any of his or her training. From a messaging perspective, I would caution people to remember that it's possible to be factually correct, but politically wrong.

It has been recognized by basically everyone that the role of the 2A is to promote a stable and fair country, and that actually applies to all of the Amendments.

The problem is the "soundbite" problem. You really need quite a few words to adequately explain that protecting the integrity of our democratic process was probably one of the main reasons for the 2A. I think that it IS an essential thing for us to be aware of, obviously. But I cringe when people misunderstand the meaning here. If anything, we LOVE our country MORE than others, since we are willing to fight for it. My ancestors fought in every war since the "War of Northern Aggression."

They are from the region of Georgia where the movie "Deliverance" was filmed, and are good ole boys. I am also estranged a bit from them, since they don't understand why I choose to live in East Oakland and why I am working to help slow the violence here.

Everything is about understanding things. I think that our outward message should be readily understandable. And I welcome ways to phrase the "water the tree" thing such that it doesn't freak people out. It doesn't bother me, since I understand the history and meaning of the words. But others do not, and I NEVER want ANY of us to be seen as anything other than what we are. Good American citizens who love our country.

I want MY descendants to NOT live in a world where people are judged by skin color, by wealth, by connections, by education, by religion. I want them to live in a world where we judge by the nature of a man's character. And I think MLK said the same thing, as did Ghandi, Brother X, etc. . . I know I am not even close to any of them. I would not even rate to tie their shoes, and Ghandi didn't even have shoes. BUT, any and all of us CAN ASPIRE to hold these beliefs.

THIS IS WHAT I AM GETTING AT!!!!

We CAN aspire to do things out of a higher calling than just being pissed off at the DOJ for the latest stupid law. Someone once criticized me because they thought I was trying to turn guns into a religion. That's kind of funny, since me and SierraApril were actually joking about starting a church called "Church of the Two Smoking Barrels." It's always been a running gag among us, so I got a chuckle out of the criticism. I think what you guys here are seeing is me just getting more philosophical as I get older. And people need to remember that I DO live in East Oakland, and I AM one of the people who takes food to the parents of kids who have been killed by gun violence. A neighbor was killed (in a different part of town) as a result of gun violence. He left a family behind, and even his dog misses him, and barks at night. It's kind of like a plaintive howl. I literally LISTEN TO THIS when I type some of the things here. This **** is real to me.

I see things from all angles, and that is why simplistic explanations about things kind of irritate me. What I am pleading for is more along the lines of adding some morals to our fight.

gunsmith
04-15-2012, 8:49 PM
I have a couple of places where I think there are some gotchas.


I worry that implicit in this is that there is not room for us to understand evil behind some of our opposition. Statism keeps failing and killing millions - even in the last 100 years - yet some of our opposition have never met centralized anti liberty ideas they don't like. I have no problem having hate for those who are truly evil.



If everyone was right then no one is wrong. The truth is that we should all support strategies and people who can succeed, but following a false prophet under the banner of unity - well, I'm sure Mao wanted unity too. Pol pot... I know of one California supposed gun rights group that uses "Unity" to hide their incompetence.

The Founders were a radical minority that lots of people didn't want to follow. They were right and the vast majority of the population of the 13 colonies were wrong. Unity is nice, but apocryphal lemmings have unity as they all plummet to their death over a cliff.

-Gene

gun control minus gun equals control/gun control is racism.

oaklander
04-15-2012, 9:05 PM
I do not disagree with your main point. The issue, as with all issues, is a thinking issue, and nothing more. Or less. . .

The thinking around things is wrong, and that is the result of years of crap.

We were sharecroppers. We were 5/5ths, but those fifths didn't mean much.

Right now, if you compare the map of places in CA where it is hard to get an LTC, with the map that shows where the highest percentage of blacks live - you get basically a 100 percent correlation between harsh gun laws, and "many black people." This is not accidental. That is why the coastal cities have harsh gun laws. It is because politicians have inflamed racial fears around violence. SO, in their typical crappy way, they made things worse, by disarming all the law abiding people, and setting up an economic system (by stupid drug laws) that rewards people for illegally obtaining guns as part of the underground economy. I guess that it doesn't help that our own government decided for a while to run cocaine out of Central America, and it is NO COINCIDENCE that Oliver North speaks for us now.

This crap has gone on for too long, and it ****s up the discourse here in Oakland to no end. City Hall doesn't even DO outreach here. It is like Districts 6 and 7 are basically ignored.

If you can, Netflix the BET "American Gangster" documentary about Felix Mitchell. It explains how things work here in Oakland.

Don't even get me started about how gun laws are used to game things. I see it from the inside, here.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT a court decision.

It is legal recognition of an inherent right. Therein lies our struggle, because we have a lot of people in power who say that indeed we have this "right", but for reasons X , Y , and Z, "we" need to fill out form A, write check to agency B, and pray it all gets processed for probable denial by date C.


The right , or the principles therein , is not the debate.Or even the core problem. What keeps Gene and Company employed is the fact that DESPITE the recognized law and the principles therein, agencies of government for a laundry list of reasons pretend that this core right either doesn't exist, doesn't apply, or shouldn't matter to them.

Solving this problem involves turning the culture around. Once upon a time, a man like me would be considered 3/5ths of a human. That infringement of a human right was culturally sanctioned also , until people in general in this nation realized this infringement and the cultural attitudes attached thereof had to go.


One day, people in New Jersey will realize that the right to Keep and Bear arms is not subject to their state's onerous regulations. One day, the cultures which sustain the anti-gun zones like New Jersey & D.C., among other places, will collapse under the weight of enlightened change....brought about by people like those on this forum, who bring about the truth and honesty of guns and rights to the uneducated masses.

THAT is the goal. We can debate mission statements until the servers crash, but practical application is whats key. This tide will not be turned in just the courts, or just the gun stores and editorials. It turns with every person who sees a gasbag like Schumer on TV and thinks " what the heck ?I went shooting with So-and-So, and his 17 round M&P wasn't an assault pistol."

When people see an AR-15 on TV and think 'Fun time with Joe Armalite' instead of 'Criminal tool of Destruction' , they'll remember that image next time some jackwagon tries to drop a gun control bill. It's going to happen, and quite frankly we always will have opportunist morons intent on roasting their Smore's over the ashes of our melting guns. With a population culturally knowledgeable of their rights, those same political opportunists' will be the ones roasting over the coals.;)

oaklander
04-15-2012, 9:21 PM
gun control minus gun equals control/gun control is racism.

Let me put it this way. . .

When I first heard about the gun control = racism thing, I thought it was true in the past, but not in the present.

It is SO TRUE IN THE PRESENT.

Even in Oakland, the person who is most likely to push for a new gun law is not even "from" the flat parts. She represents the "calm" part of Oakland. Basically, many, if not most - gun laws are representations of fears. As we know, they don't work - but they DO WORK to get politicians into office. And I have been in several elected offices, most recently CRPA. So I know what I am talking about.

When I was in law school I was elected as a student body leader. I can tell you that there is immense pressure to "do something." SO - for many years, lazy politicans who wanted to look "tough on crime" would simply crank out a new gun law. The craziest part is that right now, the parts of California that are the most safe, are EXACTLY the parts of the state that have the least amount of gun control. Same with the entire country, when you compare the UCI stats with the LTC stats.

This stuff is all a ponzi scheme, a fraud, a lie.

AND the good part is that even NON GUN OWNERS are now seeing it. Finally.

NoJoke
04-15-2012, 9:49 PM
"We believe that a 75 year old, 90 pound, 4' 10", widowed grandmother can and should defend herself against a thug"

(my mother-in-law) :rolleyes:

oaklander
04-15-2012, 10:31 PM
"We believe that a 75 year old, 90 pound, 4' 10", widowed grandmother can and should defend herself against a thug"

(my mother-in-law) :rolleyes:

Win!

LOVE IT!!!!

:chris:

ccmc
04-16-2012, 5:15 AM
Once upon a time, a man like me would be considered 3/5ths of a human.

The historical reason for that is not what most people think or have been taught. It was a pure power play by northern states to dilute the effect of southern states in the federal legislature. Think about it. At most 5 pct of white southerners were slave owners. If their slaves were counted in the census, that would have given more reps to the southern states in the House than the north was prepared to allow which arguably could have perpetuated the institution of slavery even longer. So the compromise was to count the slaves as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes and purposes of legislative representation in the House of Represntatives. Slaves weren't allowed to vote, so the 3/5ths or 5/5ths didn't matter a bit for voting anyway. Sorry for veering OT, but you brought it up.

scarville
04-16-2012, 6:42 AM
Rather than commit to non violence, we should commit to non agression. Violence is rarely the answer to our differences, but when it is the answer, it is the only answer and at that point it is needed badly.
I agree.

The problem is not violence, it is that the use of violence is unbalanced. The criminal uses violence or the threat of it to coerce his victim into compliance. The overseers tell the victim that he must go along and just give the aggressor what he wants. That reinforces violence as a successful strategy in the mind of the criminal.

A non-violent response to violence begets more violence.

On a related note, I reckon it is time to link to this (again) Why Did it Have to be ... Guns? (http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html)

ccmc
04-16-2012, 6:50 AM
Slaves weren't allowed to vote, so the 3/5ths or 5/5ths didn't matter a bit for voting anyway.

I need to correct this part of my post. It did matter, but only to the slave owner. It would have been even better for him if slaves were counted as 10/5ths of a person.

The Original Godfather
04-16-2012, 8:17 AM
Here's one I've always felt, but never saw voiced anywhere:


"The duty of our nation's citizens is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution's duty is to clearly outline and limit the powers of Government."

oaklander
04-16-2012, 8:21 AM
Here's one I've always felt, but never saw voiced anywhere:


"The duty of our nation's citizens is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution's duty is to clearly outline and limit the powers of Government."

Like!

NoJoke
04-16-2012, 8:36 AM
How about simply,

"Find the nearest LEO and ask him if he's responsible for my safety"

-then ask him-

"Who is responsible for my safety"

oaklander
04-16-2012, 8:37 AM
I agree.

The problem is not violence, it is that the use of violence is unbalanced. The criminal uses violence or the threat of it to coerce his victim into compliance. The overseers tell the victim that he must go along and just give the aggressor what he wants. That reinforces violence as a successful strategy in the mind of the criminal.

A non-violent response to violence begets more violence.

On a related note, I reckon it is time to link to this (again) Why Did it Have to be ... Guns? (http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html)

The idea that citizens can't be trusted with any kind of "power" is totally European. Totally, 1000000 percent.

See: http://californianfatrust.com/civil-rights-leaders-thomason-and-hoffman-speak-to-visiting-european-dignitaries-about-american-civil-rights/

Look guys, this stuff trips me out. I didn't ask for this. Whatever position I have. I am not talking about the titles, what I mean is that I guess I actually "am" one of the leaders. At that thing that my law school Director did, I actually tried to get out of it. I do not like being in the press, and I avoid interacting with media, or at least - I avoid having stories written about me. Once in a while, I will write one myself - but I have control over those.

And those are to get a message out.

But I NEVER *really* want to be a leader. I just like to observe things, maybe think about things, then just report back to you guys and ladies.

Let me break it down, since I live in Oakland, and that is what we do. . .

In the mid-late 1980's, I ended up taking a lot of urban studies classes. Long story why. So, my essential minor is urban studies. My degree is about how people interact with institutions. Then in law school, I studied the civil rights movement some more, among other things.

Then by chance, I ended up in East Oakland (another long story).

Then I got back into guns.

Then I found out that modern gun control started in Oakland, with the Mulford Act. The fricken neighborhood that I live in now was the scene of a shootout with the Panthers. I know people who know them, not just from the civil rights movement - but from my other work that I do here.

Most of the stuff that Adam Winkler writes about?

I actually know the people.

This stuff all trips me out. About half the time, I am just like "screw it," let everyone fix their own problems. But then, like I keep saying - due to work I do with my church, I am starting to know the victims of violence here. We pray with their families.

Like I say, I see this stuff from almost every angle. And even though I am kind of a silly person, I have enough common sense to at least see things with my own eyes. The people who think that gun rights ARE civil rights - ARE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT.

I can't stop doing this work, since I am kind of in a place where I see and know enough things to help fix some issues here.

I spent half of my life trying to be what everyone else wanted. My mom thinks I should move and get a house with a white picket fence and buy a new car and get a regular job instead of doing contract work. And like I said, most of my family has disowned me. Part of the gun rights movement seems to think I am like Don Quixote here. I don't actually give a **** what people think.

I see exactly what is wrong here. Gun control has killed people.

Oakland IS the front lines on this stuff, and that is why I am kind of mixing the two. Again, you will note that the groups I work with here in Oakland (and there are about five), have not kicked me out - and they welcome me, and they listen. "We" remember Mulford, is another way to say it.

And by "we" - I mean the people I love, the people I live with, the people who love me and Ruth. Our neighbors and friends. This stuff is not abstract. I am not some couch cowboy on this issue. I am so right-in-the-middle of it that it keeps me awake at night. In everything I do, I have to be the nicest person in the world, since Oakland is NO ****ING JOKE.

I am sorry to get so emotional, but this is why I sometimes come down hard on people. This stuff is real to me, since I am inside of it, part of it, touching it, feeling it, living it.

ALSO - you guys know about the Alex Jones crowd? The "infowars" group? Some of you probably read that stuff, etc. . .

WELL - the PEOPLE on the street here tell me things that match up. You folks remember Iran/Contra (our country smuggled coke out of Central America to fund a war down there)? It was in at least one movie, and was why Oliver North was in front of Congress. Like, it is real, you know????

Where do you think all that cocaine went? Most of it went to the inner cities. There are various theories about how it got here. But the bottom line is that the street thugs who do things had to get it from someone. SO, you combine this whole drug thing, the drug laws, the prisons, the politics, and the guns laws. And what do you have? You have a place where the only hope for many of these kids IS a life of crime. That is the highest THEY can often aspire to. Our church tries to help them, but many don't make it out of the lifestyle. They are not bad kids, but they become bad.

The gun laws (which CREATE a huge underground market for guns), and the drug laws, and the lack of opportunity here, the crappy schools, the crappy government, the not-so-benign neglect kind of conspire to **** them before they are even born.

It is the fundamental lack of fairness here that makes me want to fix things.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 9:27 AM
On the other hand, they're darn tasty when baked w/ butter, garlic, oregano, basil, parsley, shallots, and a tiny jot of Worcestershire. I've got three cans of them waiting to be cooked up to celebrate tax season ending and moving to a new, bigger home w/ my lovely wife.

Yes, they taste kind of earthy!!! I like em!!!

Left Coast Conservative
04-16-2012, 9:32 AM
Does that even make sense?

I am married to a marketing professional working in the high tech industry. This make TOTAL sense.

The five principles will not be the basis of the message, they will be the message, in the most simplified form. So, think carefully about it folks!

Also, we each in our lives have contacts with people. These principles can serve as a guide as we each, in or small ways, serve as evangelists for this new civil right. Consistency and repetition will win the day.

SWalt
04-16-2012, 9:46 AM
"Self defense is the first and foremost human right"

All else flows from that. Without self defense, all the rest are fruitless. You can not have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, thought, conscience, etc unless those trying to exercise them have the ability to enforce their ability to have those rights. Having to depending on any government too ensure you have those other rights will always eventually fail.

Keep it simple and then explain how all other principals flow from the simple concept.

markm
04-16-2012, 10:13 AM
I have a couple of places where I think there are some gotchas.


I worry that implicit in this is that there is not room for us to understand evil behind some of our opposition. Statism keeps failing and killing millions - even in the last 100 years - yet some of our opposition have never met centralized anti liberty ideas they don't like. I have no problem having hate for those who are truly evil.



If everyone was right then no one is wrong. The truth is that we should all support strategies and people who can succeed, but following a false prophet under the banner of unity - well, I'm sure Mao wanted unity too. Pol pot... I know of one California supposed gun rights group that uses "Unity" to hide their incompetence.

The Founders were a radical minority that lots of people didn't want to follow. They were right and the vast majority of the population of the 13 colonies were wrong. Unity is nice, but apocryphal lemmings have unity as they all plummet to their death over a cliff.

-Gene

Hello Gene,

You nailed it! +10

I would like to respond to an earlier comment by Oaklander: "violence begets violence."

This is an illogical statement.

I am prepared to visit violoence on anyone who attacks me or mine. If you force entry into my house, and don't clearly identify yourself as law enforcement, you will be shot, stabbed, or beaten severely. I will use violence to stop violence that is being perpetrated against me or mine.

Peace will ensue after I stop the person or people who use violence to enter my house.

Evil people exist. Real threats of violence against perpetrators curbs their desire to commit violence.

The American occupation of Europe since 1945 has curbed the brutal tribal violence that occurred in Europe previous to our occupation. We use the threat of violence, that is nuclear violence, to ensure peace. It has worked for 67 years.

People who believe that "violence begets violence" don't believe that evil people exist. Some people need to be killed.

markm

Kukuforguns
04-16-2012, 11:21 AM
"We oppose no person, only ideas."
This and some of the other propositions that you have created are phrased in the negative. Psychological studies indicate that if we want to portray a positive message, then we should phrase the message as a positive. For example, "We want you to agree with our position." This is a positive message about adoption and inclusiveness and not a statement based on opposition. We do not want to frame ourselves as the opposition position. We are the majority and moral position.

"We work out of love for our rights, and not out of hate for our opposition."
I think that this statement is better if limited to the first clause. "We are passionate about safeguarding/protecting the rights we all share."

"We reject violence as a way to push an agenda."
Again, phrased in the negative. "We will accomplish our agenda through education/persuasion." "We embrace education/persuasion as the means to achieving our goals."

"We agree that all people should have the same rights. . ."
Stronger if you remove the preamble and get rid of the "should": "All people are created equal." "Human rights are universal." "All people have the same rights."

"We believe that our rights existed before the first document was written. . ."
I think that this is somewhat duplicative of the prior proposition. If all people have the same rights, and given the fact that people live under different governments, it necessarily follows that rights preexisted written documentation of our rights. "Human rights are universal."

"We believe that armed societies are safer societies, in this violent world."
I really believe the second clause should be stricken. First, we in the United States do not live in a violent world. Not even close (well, it was closer to true just a few years ago for young black men living in urban areas). Moreover, what happens when we achieve a "safe" society? Do guns then become unnecessary? So, I believe the second clause is detrimental to our goals. Also, do we want to stress safety or freedom? "Armed societies are free societies. Free societies are safe societies."

"We believe that our civil rights should not depend on fickle partisan politics."
Again, I think that this is somewhat duplicative of "Human rights are universal."

"We believe that our rights are based on universal principles. . ."
This is stronger without the "we believe that." Better as: "Our rights are based on universal principles," or "Human rights are universal."

Maybe: "Freedom is a universal human right." For me, everything else flows from this one proposition. From freedom is a universal human right, we get: "Free people have the right to keep and bear arms," and "An armed society is a free society," and "A free society is a safe society."

Moreover, "Freedom is a universal human right" is a very hard proposition to oppose.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 12:22 PM
Thank you, yes - your comments reflect some good thinking, and this is exactly the type of discussion that I want to see here.

After a few more days of letting the thread "run" - I will distill things down, and we can all kind of work on a collaborative UNOFFICIAL policy document. What I would then like to see is people, gun shops, organizations, etc. . . start to sign off on the document, just as a recognition of basic principles.

This will then become our platform, for the single issue political movement that we already are.

AGAIN - this is ESSENTIAL - right now - virtually every candidate in every election is scrambling over themselves to look friendly to our rights. But unless we pin them down on what they are "friendly" to - we won't get much in the way of traction, when they start to veer left after getting voted in.

ALSO - this is totally voluntary, grassroots, etc. . . it's not even connected to CGF, although Gene and I have communicated on back end about the concepts here, and we are in apparent accord, as always, on most things. He and I kind of have ESP on this stuff (probably because we share similar backgrounds and ways of thinking).

"We oppose no person, only ideas."
This and some of the other propositions that you have created are phrased in the negative. Psychological studies indicate that if we want to portray a positive message, then we should phrase the message as a positive. For example, "We want you to agree with our position." This is a positive message about adoption and inclusiveness and not a statement based on opposition. We do not want to frame ourselves as the opposition position. We are the majority and moral position.

"We work out of love for our rights, and not out of hate for our opposition."
I think that this statement is better if limited to the first clause. "We are passionate about safeguarding/protecting the rights we all share."

"We reject violence as a way to push an agenda."
Again, phrased in the negative. "We will accomplish our agenda through education/persuasion." "We embrace education/persuasion as the means to achieving our goals."

"We agree that all people should have the same rights. . ."
Stronger if you remove the preamble and get rid of the "should": "All people are created equal." "Human rights are universal." "All people have the same rights."

"We believe that our rights existed before the first document was written. . ."
I think that this is somewhat duplicative of the prior proposition. If all people have the same rights, and given the fact that people live under different governments, it necessarily follows that rights preexisted written documentation of our rights. "Human rights are universal."

"We believe that armed societies are safer societies, in this violent world."
I really believe the second clause should be stricken. First, we in the United States do not live in a violent world. Not even close (well, it was closer to true just a few years ago for young black men living in urban areas). Moreover, what happens when we achieve a "safe" society? Do guns then become unnecessary? So, I believe the second clause is detrimental to our goals. Also, do we want to stress safety or freedom? "Armed societies are free societies. Free societies are safe societies."

"We believe that our civil rights should not depend on fickle partisan politics."
Again, I think that this is somewhat duplicative of "Human rights are universal."

"We believe that our rights are based on universal principles. . ."
This is stronger without the "we believe that." Better as: "Our rights are based on universal principles," or "Human rights are universal."

Maybe: "Freedom is a universal human right." For me, everything else flows from this one proposition. From freedom is a universal human right, we get: "Free people have the right to keep and bear arms," and "An armed society is a free society," and "A free society is a safe society."

Moreover, "Freedom is a universal human right" is a very hard proposition to oppose.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 12:27 PM
I am married to a marketing professional working in the high tech industry. This make TOTAL sense.

The five principles will not be the basis of the message, they will be the message, in the most simplified form. So, think carefully about it folks!

Also, we each in our lives have contacts with people. These principles can serve as a guide as we each, in or small ways, serve as evangelists for this new civil right. Consistency and repetition will win the day.

Yes, exactly!!!

oaklander
04-16-2012, 12:31 PM
Hello Gene,

You nailed it! +10

I would like to respond to an earlier comment by Oaklander: "violence begets violence."

This is an illogical statement.

I am prepared to visit violoence on anyone who attacks me or mine. If you force entry into my house, and don't clearly identify yourself as law enforcement, you will be shot, stabbed, or beaten severely. I will use violence to stop violence that is being perpetrated against me or mine.

Peace will ensue after I stop the person or people who use violence to enter my house.

Evil people exist. Real threats of violence against perpetrators curbs their desire to commit violence.

The American occupation of Europe since 1945 has curbed the brutal tribal violence that occurred in Europe previous to our occupation. We use the threat of violence, that is nuclear violence, to ensure peace. It has worked for 67 years.

People who believe that "violence begets violence" don't believe that evil people exist. Some people need to be killed.

markm

OUR home defense weapon:

http://bit.ly/IRwpAJ

What I was getting at (and it's my fault for not expressing it correctly), was that political movements should not use violence to achieve the ends of the movement.

Um, it is obvious that we like guns because guns can be used to kill bad people (and thereby save good people) in legitimate and legal self defense scenarios. That kind of goes without saying. Or maybe it does not.

Gene was getting at something else anyways, and it doesn't even relate to this thread. You have to know him to know how he communicates.

Look, I AM always calling for UNITY and kumbaya crap here. I know that. Everyone knows that. THAT IS FOR OUR SIDE.

AND seriously, there will not be happy chanting and drum circles, should someone make the mistake of causing a real, immediate, life-endangering threat me, my wife, or my friends.

I think most of you feel the same way about your friends and family.

THAT is why I put in about 2000 hours per year of unpaid work on this issue. At my current billing rate, that is worth about $700,000 dollars, per year - of free work - to our community. I am ENTIRELY behind the use of force, when proper, ethical, and legal.

You joined in May 11, and have 164 posts? PLEASE do some more research on who I am and what I stand for, before you make assumptions about things. I have clothes in my dirty clothes pile that have been there longer than you have been here. And I see what you did, you replied to Gene's post, without reading my subsequent 10 posts that agreed with him, and which explained what I just had to spend another 15 minutes explaining to you.

Please work on your reading comprehension before you comment again on this topic. The point is that I agree with you, and if you HAD read the whole thread, you would have seen this. . .

Decoligny
04-16-2012, 12:50 PM
I studied AT LENGTH, how violence was used in the 1960's. I also studied the backlash against it.

That, combined with me being a Christian, pretty much makes me believe in my own heart and soul that violence begets violence, and that violence invites oppression, and that violence kills souls from the inside.

I know that some people see glamour in violence, but I live in Deep East Oakland, and all I see is pain in violence.

That being said, it is my hope that our country remembers that we are a NATION OF LAWS, and that we work to change the system by BECOMING THE SYSTEM. Never by destabilizing it. That is what I did not like about "Occupy" - they were full of sound and fury, but their actions signified nothing. Change happens within each of us, and if we want to change the world around us, we JOIN IT. We DO NOT "fight it."

Once we JOIN the system, we work WITHIN the system, as our Founders intended, to change it.

Violence when directed from one individual to another individual does exactly as you say it does. Violence from authority to the individual citizenry does the same.

Violence when directed by a united group towards an aggressive oppressive regime as a way to overthrow the bonds of tyranny, not so much. It is the last ditch effort to obtain freedom.

The Founding Fathers knew quite well that there was no "glory" or "glamour" in the violent actions that they were forced to engage in. They took those violent actions only because they were necessary to ensure their freedom.

It was their very last resort, as violence always should be.

After many years of failed attempts to change their system, they failed, and resorted to violence.

If after many years of failed attempts to change our system, as the Founding Fathers attempted, and a level of tyranny is reached that becomes untennable to the average citizen, at that point, violence becomes inevitable. I pray that day never comes.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 12:59 PM
Violence when directed from one individual to another individual does exactly as you say it does. Violence from authority to the individual citizenry does the same.

Violence when directed by a united group towards an aggressive oppressive regime as a way to overthrow the bonds of tyranny, not so much. It is the last ditch effort to obtain freedom.

The Founding Fathers knew quite well that there was no "glory" or "glamour" in the violent actions that they were forced to engage in. They took those violent actions only because they were necessary to ensure their freedom.

It was their very last resort, as violence always should be.

After many years of failed attempts to change their system, they failed, and resorted to violence.

If after many years of failed attempts to change our system, as the Founding Fathers attempted, and a level of tyranny is reached that becomes untennable to the average citizen, at that point, violence becomes inevitable. I pray that day never comes.

YES!

Exactly - this is what I have been trying to say. You put it better than I did.

speedrrracer
04-16-2012, 2:42 PM
Most seem like great ideas! Didn't agree with the following:


"We oppose no person, only ideas."

Disagree -- this is like saying "People don't kill people, guns kill people". Ideas can be bad or good or whatever, but people with those ideas are ultimately the problem or the solution because ideas are just bits of electricity in someone's brain. Bits of electricity are not the problem.


"We work out of love for our rights, and not out of hate for our opposition."

Depends on the opposition. I could easily get up some hate for anyone trying to crush my civil rights.


"We reject violence as a way to push an agenda."
No, violence is really important when, for example, the Nazis are trying to burn people in ovens. My agenda would be to kill the Nazis with ridiculous levels of violence.


"We have only one enemy, and that is our own discord."
No, again, there are people who want to take our freedoms and rights, and they are definitely enemies.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 3:48 PM
Most seem like great ideas! Didn't agree with the following:



Disagree -- this is like saying "People don't kill people, guns kill people". Ideas can be bad or good or whatever, but people with those ideas are ultimately the problem or the solution because ideas are just bits of electricity in someone's brain. Bits of electricity are not the problem.



Depends on the opposition. I could easily get up some hate for anyone trying to crush my civil rights.


No, violence is really important when, for example, the Nazis are trying to burn people in ovens. My agenda would be to kill the Nazis with ridiculous levels of violence.


No, again, there are people who want to take our freedoms and rights, and they are definitely enemies.

Yes, that is why I am polling. I know this sounds strange, but I am more peace and love than a lot of people. That being said, these are YOU ALL's principles, not mine. And this is a good conversation. I like it when we discuss things like this. What I didn't like above was someone not reading the thread before posting.

;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bigstones
04-16-2012, 5:07 PM
We work to expand rights for all and never to restrict rights of others.

I like this a lot. We need to get out of our narrow Second Amendment is everything mode and start working to form broad coalitions across political and party lines to expand the rights of all.

bigstones
04-16-2012, 5:16 PM
Hello Gene,

You nailed it! +10

I would like to respond to an earlier comment by Oaklander: "violence begets violence."

This is an illogical statement.

I am prepared to visit violoence on anyone who attacks me or mine. If you force entry into my house, and don't clearly identify yourself as law enforcement, you will be shot, stabbed, or beaten severely. I will use violence to stop violence that is being perpetrated against me or mine.

Peace will ensue after I stop the person or people who use violence to enter my house.

Evil people exist. Real threats of violence against perpetrators curbs their desire to commit violence.

The American occupation of Europe since 1945 has curbed the brutal tribal violence that occurred in Europe previous to our occupation. We use the threat of violence, that is nuclear violence, to ensure peace. It has worked for 67 years.

People who believe that "violence begets violence" don't believe that evil people exist. Some people need to be killed.

markm

Here is the problem with your analysis. Look at the situation in Israel. A Palestinian boy is throwing rocks at the Israeli's. They shoot an kill him. His family believes the Israeli's are evil and must be killed. They get a hold of a rocket and fire it into an Israeli settlement killing several people. The Israelis decide the Palestinians are evil and launch a raid on their village to stop further rocket attacks. Several Palestinians are killed in the raid. Now who is evil and who is innocent? Where does the cycle of violence end?

What if the person who is trying to enter your house is drunk and believes it to be his house? What if his family decides you are evil for shooting him and decides to take revenge on you?

Do you see the problem? While I do not dispute that there are people in the world who do evil things, I am not so sure there is anyone who is completely evil or anyone who is completely good. Much depends on your perspective. In fact, much of the evil I see in the world is perpetrated by people who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness.

oaklander
04-16-2012, 6:32 PM
Much depends on your perspective. In fact, much of the evil I see in the world is perpetrated by people who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness.

Yes, I see that a lot in Oakland. The young kids driving the Buicks with the 26 inch wheels are an example. From THEIR perspective, they are just driving a car with big wheels, and to them, it's a cool car.

To others, they are automatically scary "criminals."

I get the same thing with my Harley, BTW. To me, it's just a loud and heavy bike, but to others, I must seem like a "scary biker," based on the looks I get when I pull into the "nicer" parts of town. . .

Everything is perspective - and I think to kind of "brand" something, or someone as evil - we need to be really clear what we are talking about.

My general rule in life is that if a person works from love, honesty, and respect, then that is a good person. If the person works from fear, greed, and deception - then that is not a good person.

Everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING, is complete and utter BS.

Looks, money, clothes, education, religion, race, politics. Those are all crap - they are complete illusions.

99 percent of our problems in this country are because people have an innate tendency to "brand" others, based merely on their limited and media-influenced preconceptions of reality. I used to be a Director at a PR firm. I KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DO THIS, AND I HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.

YOU CAN MAKE UP SEEM DOWN,
AND YOU CAN MAKE DOWN SEEM UP -
ALL IT TAKES IS UNDERSTANDING HOW PEOPLE PERCEIVE REALITY.

How do people think "we" as civil rights advocates, got "branded" as the "bad guys" for so long??? Do you guys think it was accidental???

NO!!!!!!!!!

It was part of a deliberate media campaign. I know this because I HAVE BEEN TO THE OFFICES OF ONE OF THE PR FIRMS THAT WAS ENGAGED IN THIS. IT WAS THE PR FIRM THAT WAS HIRED WHEN FLORIDA PASSED THEIR LTC LAWS ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. THEY WERE GIVEN A SPECIFIC MISSION TO USE THE MEDIA TO BRAND GUN OWNERS AS DANGEROUS THUGS.

You guys really need to wake up on this crap. Seriously. Wake. Up.

All of this stuff is common knowledge, inside the industry, BTW.

It's a faces or vases issue:

http://media.log-in.ru/i/faces_or_vases.gif

oaklander
04-16-2012, 6:55 PM
I like this a lot. We need to get out of our narrow Second Amendment is everything mode and start working to form broad coalitions across political and party lines to expand the rights of all.

Exactly!

There are literally HUNDREDS of groups that would support us, if we simply were a bit more clear on what we "want" and "believe."

We also need to knock off the partisan crap. If we need to do "partisan" things, then we let the big three letter orgs do them. But at ground level, we do MUCH better to look for friends, than always seeking enemies.

AGAIN - I learned this from living in Deep East Oakland. You simply CANNOT go around East Oakland looking for trouble. You also can't make ANY assumptions about ANYTHING. You just look at reality as it is, without preconceptions about people. If you judge, you judge by how a person treats YOU.

You look for similarities, and not for opposition.

These are like basic kindergarten concepts, but in all the politics around guns, we seem to have this need to make snap judgments about everything. FOR EXAMPLE, I don't know if you guys even realize this, but our movement is aligned with the "mainline" black civil rights movement? You probably didn't even notice that C.O.R.E. (Council on Racial Equality) filed an amicus in one of our coalition cases. Did you guys know that one of the main attorneys who does work for our coalition used to be a Freedom Rider, in the 1960's.

It's stuff like that, that you all need to learn.

pennys dad
04-16-2012, 7:23 PM
April 19th 1775, 77 working class fathers and sons, husbands and brothers stood before the army of their oppressors, to fight not for their right (they knew they would most likely die) but for the rights of their prosperity , the future fathers, wives, sons and daughters. today i fight for my prosperity and to be an example of what can be done with tolerance and respect for others .
nice thread crazy bald dude
;-)
the battle today is for our future

oaklander
04-16-2012, 9:10 PM
um. . .

ROFL - I realized that you can ALSO see all the crap I post on Facebook too!!!!

ya, pretty much guilty as charged!!!

:)

I really DO like to win things like this, as part of a team. The craziest part is that all I literally do is throw BBQ's and stuff, and go to meetings. What I saw, when I started doing those basic things was ONE simple thing:

IF people sit down together, and work things out - things DO get better.

I know that sounds like a platitude, but most problems in life are caused by simple mis-communications.

oaklander
04-18-2012, 9:43 AM
Bump, AND a reminder that WE must never fall down to the level of having any sort of "political-correctness (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8426484&postcount=25)" in OUR own movement.

Because that is what we are, we are a freedom movement.

GutPunch
04-18-2012, 11:38 AM
Here is the problem with your analysis. Look at the situation in Israel. A Palestinian boy is throwing rocks at the Israeli's. They shoot an kill him. His family believes the Israeli's are evil and must be killed. They get a hold of a rocket and fire it into an Israeli settlement killing several people. The Israelis decide the Palestinians are evil and launch a raid on their village to stop further rocket attacks. Several Palestinians are killed in the raid. Now who is evil and who is innocent? Where does the cycle of violence end?

What if the person who is trying to enter your house is drunk and believes it to be his house? What if his family decides you are evil for shooting him and decides to take revenge on you?

Do you see the problem? While I do not dispute that there are people in the world who do evil things, I am not so sure there is anyone who is completely evil or anyone who is completely good. Much depends on your perspective. In fact, much of the evil I see in the world is perpetrated by people who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness.

You are quite correct about your analysis. But the ultimate conclusion to your line of thought isn't coexistence. Peace can only be achieved after ultimate victory by once side over the other. The fighting ends when one side is utterly destroyed and incapable of having a will to fight. Peace, without victory, is a lie.

@ Oaklander: This is an interesting thread. I like your ideas however, I fear that unless these ideas are some how added to the Constitution (or 2nd version of the American Constitution), they will have little impact on the ever growing government.

oaklander
04-18-2012, 12:04 PM
You are quite correct about your analysis. But the ultimate conclusion to your line of thought isn't coexistence. Peace can only be achieved after ultimate victory by once side over the other. The fighting ends when one side is utterly destroyed and incapable of having a will to fight. Peace, without victory, is a lie.

@ Oaklander: This is an interesting thread. I like your ideas however, I fear that unless these ideas are some how added to the Constitution (or 2nd version of the American Constitution), they will have little impact on the ever growing government.

I know. When I was a kid, I remembered that commercial with the indian, and he was shedding a tear because of how environmental pollution was messing up the land that he was so close to.

I am not ashamed to say that I am an idealist, and that some of my ideas are probably "too" aspirational. I get a little emotional when I think of how our country has backslid into something that is more Soviet, than American.

That being said, I am also a pragmatist, with years of experience in law, PR, and marketing, and I am just now getting my feet wet with local politics. I know from experience how things come down, how they are done, and by whom, and for what reason (hint, it is always money).

And THIS is why I keep telling people that WE are the ones who determine our own fates. The Founders had it right. We stand together. Or we die apart. And I don't mean literally die (although that does happen when people do not have the self defense right). What I mean is that WE. MUST. COME. TOGETHER. AS. A. MOVEMENT.

We do not need to vanquish anyone. We need to edify, to educate, to build up. And when we hit opposition, we build them up, and if we can't build them up, we take them down, through the courts. The courts of law, and the courts of public opinion.

DAMMIT!

We ARE on the right side of the self defense issue, and we need to act like it.

We are MUCH MORE than people who want "cool guns" - when you look at our history, our allies, our opposition, and our media - it is OBVIOUS that we are at the forefront of restoring the most important right of all. The right not to die, by the hands of another.

This goes back to the dawn of human civilization, and that is why gun rights are civil rights. We were the FIRST "right to lifers." And in my opinion, we are the MAIN right to lifers.

AND - this is not "right" or "left."

It is RIGHT, in the sense that is it morally, ethically, and logically right.

</preach mode off>

ROFL!!!

odysseus
04-21-2012, 1:03 AM
"All rights are property rights. The measure of an individual's ability to determine the disposition of their property and their life is a measure of their ownership of their own self, and, by extension, a measure of their freedom."

This is such an important facet of the core spectrum of Liberty of the individual, that I have had this point for my sig quote from John Adams for some time now.

It is also where the most erosion in Liberty has occurred in this Country over the individual, that so many in the public domain now fall back on a lower denominator about individual rights, since so much statism has incurred control over property rights away from the individual in the 20th Century that people reason an expectation from a smaller "pool" in their minds.

oaklander
04-21-2012, 10:52 AM
This is such an important facet of the core spectrum of Liberty of the individual, that I have had this point for my sig quote from John Adams for some time now.

It is also where the most erosion in Liberty has occurred in this Country over the individual, that so many in the public domain now fall back on a lower denominator about individual rights, since so much statism has incurred control over property rights away from the individual in the 20th Century that people reason an expectation from a smaller "pool" in their minds.

Yes, Gene actually touched on this in a recent article he wrote. He talked about "battered gun owners syndrome."

We basically expect less than we should, since we have kind of been brainwashed by our own past ineptitude. Or at least, that is my interpretation. Gene is seriously way smarter than me - so sometimes, it takes me a while to see what he is getting at. . .

I need to remind people that "we are our own worst enemy" - too often. And this is FIXED by having a clear vision of what we stand for, and what we want.