|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Using the Second Amendment to Attack Democracy
From ExpressMilwaulkee.com
Quote:
Discuss.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Somebody needs to buy Horwitz a copy of Glenn Beck's "Arguing with Idiots" book and refer him to chapter 2 (the one on 2A). Horwitz seems to fit the idiot profile pretty well...
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
It is an expression of the will to defend liberty by justifiable violence. Our opposition whimsically discards the notion of such thing. Reminding poltiticians that they are beholden to us and that our will bears weight of force is not only proper but way overdue. They forget that far too often and have become far too comfortable.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
It is an expression of the will to defend liberty by justifiable violence. Our opposition whimsically discards the notion of such thing. Reminding poltiticians that they are beholden to us and that our will bears weight of force is not only proper but way overdue. They forget that far too often and have become far too comfortable, lacking sufficient fear impelling them to behave.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The major flaw with his argument (other than its wrong )is that he assumes to much. One thing he assumes is that background checks and registration are one and the same. I would hazard a guess that most gun owners think background checks are tolerable,and I believe they are a good idea. But registration is a different issue. Historically registration leads to confiscation.
Also he assumes that a fear of registration, and thus confiscation has to do with a desire to use the arms against the government. It does not. It is simply that if our guns are registered it makes them easier to confiscate, and therefore we lose our most effective means of self defense. Occam's Razor applies here. He already has gun owners broken down into two groups, sportsmen and those desiring self defense. To then say that people from these groups don't want registration because of some insurrectionist tendency makes a huge leap of logic. It is a far simpler an explanation to say that they don't want the tools of their sport or means of self defense taken away, and registration is a threat towards that end. The simpler explanation is far more likely. Even if it is true, and I think it is, that there is a minority of people who hold an insurrectionist view that arms are to be used against a government you don't approve of, it does not mean that if you take away that segment then registration won't be opposed. Put another way, insurrectionists would not be the only ones opposed to registration. In fact I think the majority of gun owners would be opposed to registration, whether for fears of confiscation or privacy reasons. Finally he assumes that people bringing guns to rallies are there to intimidate or send a message that opposition will be met with violence. In fact this is a compound logical error. Error one is assuming that they are bearing arms as a threat to the opposition. There are other explanations; they could be spreading awareness of the right to carry openly, they may be exercising what they view as a fundamental right as a means of showing their commitment to fundamental American values, or they may ALWAYS carry guns for personal protection. Horowitz apparently fears guns and those who bear them therefore he projects his own fear into their motives by assuming they are hostile or threatening. The second error is assuming that the people who bear arms conspicuously, like the AR15 guy in Arizona, are even at the protest or rally because of the issue at stake. Ar15 guy was not there because of the health care issue, he was there to show his support for 2nd amendment issues. Just like Abortion supporters or opposers who show up to any and every political rally or event in the hopes of getting some media attention, many of the open carriers are at these rallies to show support for gun rights causes that they feel are threatened by the current administration. They aren't threatening anyone, they are just looking for some exposure for their issues. It's impossible for me to take arguments like this seriously, I mean he admits straight out that his whole position is based on fear and not logic. How many times can you say in a one page interview "I'm scared" or "It's scary"? He is trying to tell his readers "I'm a reasonable person, and I am scared; therefore you should be too and just agree with me without thinking about it too much cus its just too darn scary" Sadly this kind of argument goes a long way with educated people who should know better. Last edited by jrr; 10-23-2009 at 11:18 AM.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Also, his points on equality and insurrections are interesting, but not for his reasons.
It is often said that a gun is the ultimate equalizer. He claims that having a gun is an infringement on his freedom o speech because he feels threatened. Well, nobody is stopping him from strapping on a piece and going to the protests. And since when is one liberty more important than another? Sure, if I use my liberty to infringe on the liberty of another then I should be restricted. But I feel my 2nd amendment liberty is threatened by his speech, so can I pass a law that restricts the right to talk smack and spread FUD about guns? And the other major rebellion, and its consequences, that he conveniently forgets is the Civil War. Talk about States using the militia's power! And look at what did NOT happen... the North did NOT restrict the rights of gun owners in the Southern states. Despite the fact that if they were disarmed then they would not be capable of insurrection again. Instead what happened was the South passed laws restricting the rights of freed slaves from owning guns! Why? Because a gun makes you an equal. So the argument that the 2nd amendment was intended as some kind of check on insurrections or rebellions is ludicrous. If the intent was to prevent individuals from owning guns in order to prevent a repeat of Shay's rebellion then the second amendment would read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to raise and arm the Milita shall not be infringed". Instead it says the People have the right to keep and bear arms, and later on the constitution gives Congress the power to call out the Militia. Last edited by jrr; 10-23-2009 at 11:34 AM.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
We are not a democracy, the founding fathers in the federalist papers spoke out against it, we are a republic. He talks about how voting matters but our system can void even the majority vote.
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Excellent and insightful posts, jrr.
Welcome to the forum.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
So if the majority votes into office a murderous dictator intent on carrying out genocide, an armed insurrection would be wrong? Idiot. That Q&A is filled with strawman arguments and red-herrings.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor American Marksman Training Group Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page NRA Memberships at Discounted fee |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Did someone pull a gun and tell him how to vote, No. and would anyone of us let that happen, No. so what was his point? I fear your rights.
__________________
"One useless man is called a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a Congress." the new avatar is a painting from 1906, escape from San Francisco. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Congress (and the state legislature), have an approval rating of under 20%, yet when you go one-on-one, nearly 90% of respondents are happy with THEIR representatives. THIS is what has "broken" the 2-party system. The California legislature is in the pockets of the unions, and the seats are so safe that we are powerless to remove them. The root of the "safe seats"? The polar opposite of the reason our country was founded. The colonists revolted over taxation without representation. Today, we have the opposite true... we have segements of society that have full representation without equal taxation. The founding fathers never intended for the general public to have the right to vote. The right to vote was reserved for those who paid taxes... landowners. They understood that, even though renters pay more rent when taxes are increased, the renters would assume that a tax reduction would not result in a reduction of their rents, and the renters would view taxes as a way to "stick it" to the wealthy landowners. Now throw in the "New Deal", and ice the cake with the "Great Society", and you have a system where true political power is stripped from the people and handed over to the best salesman who is able to appeal to society's lowest common denominator.
__________________
- Rich |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
The issue in the Shay's rebellion is that the rebels skipped the courts and went straight to arms. Of course Washington will put that down.
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That should be engraved in marble.
__________________
- Rich |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Shoot the miscreant down with the appropriate caliber; 2. File for a restraining order with your local neighborhood Court once you are released from the hospital and after your late wife's funeral. Of course Shay's rebellion failed, possibly because they didn't use a clever moniker such as Americans Concerned Over Rotten No-good-courts. Oh, and jrr did real good for a new guy.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Tolerable checks
I wonder how many people agree with you, I think I do. The problem is that both sides of the debate refuse to discuss what is tolerable. I would like to see us move towards some sort of federal licence that allows instant purchase and carry rights. To get such a licence you would probably go through a background check and some form of training. It would probably need to be renewed on a regular basis. Such a licence would streamline our ability to exercise our rights and give some assurance to the state that citizens understand how to use their fireams while keeping them away from violent criminals. I would not want to see registration of individual firearms. The problem is no one wants to talk about how to meet in the middle.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government, therefore, to allow that government to have the power to deny you such a "license" nullifies the Constitutional right and makes it a privilege. Even background checks are an infringement upon the 2a, but I do agree that there needs to be a step in "the system" to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons. But no felony convictions? The Constitution allows for no registration, licensing, safety certificates, etc...
__________________
- Rich |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
I can't put my hands on it right now, but I read a friendly analysis of Scalia's writings in Heller and one of the points it made was how fortunate we will be (for the long term) that he did not call out the 'insurrectionist rationale' in the opinion affirming the individual right to KBA.
While it is something that we all believe deeply is a last and most important line of defense against tyranny, politically it has the ability to self-defeat other less emotive arguments for our cause. It's why wearing guns to tea parties, while completely admirable, legal/lawful, and "in the right sprit" is still a bad idea in the political environment. --Neill
__________________
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
So it's not black and white, criminal background checks are ok? I do believe a right is something you lose and not something you earn. I guess my point is that maybe one loses their right before they exercise it when they are irresponsible or unable (mentally ill) to keep and bear arms, hence the training idea.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Rights are given up, not earned, but there needs to be a way to determine who has their rights and who has given those rights up, in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of those who have them. Licensing of any type is certainly an infringement. Background checks are the only way to determine who has the right and who does not, but the catch-22 is that the government is the repository of that information, therefore, the fox is guarding the hen house no matter what scenario is proposed.
__________________
- Rich |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Background checks are interesting ground.
When you consider the idea of "civil death" - something earned that nullifies rights as a citizen, society has a vested interest in verifying that the person is still in good standing. Then again, there's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing - or "innocent at first glance". For me, the only way to get around this would be to somehow ID felons with a marking on their identification. And honestly, I'm not terribly comfortable with that. Maybe I had too much Hawthorne in my youth.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This guy is like, totally brilliant and stuff. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There's nothing to stop a felon from forging an ID card... they do it all the time. So we're back to the problem of coming up with a way for the industry to self-regulate (which is the only way of keeping the government's nose out of it), in an environment where the government is the source of who is and who is not a felon. Like I said, it's a catch-22. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who do not have the RKBA by necessity implies some level of trust in the government on the part of those who do have the RKBA that the government will not infringe upon that right..... ... something that the US and other governments have proven that they cannot be trusted with repeatedly over the last 200 years.
__________________
- Rich |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Greetings to all, Just a quick update on my campaign for Sheriff of El Dorado County; I attended the El Dorado Gun Show sponsored by "The Buck Stop" where I had a booth to inform voters/gun owners about my stance and meet people. The dates were October 10,11 2009 Sat/Sun and was well attended and positive reviews were enjoyed, of the seven candidates only myself and John D'Agostini were present which says a lot about the remaining five.
So to all who attended thank you and to those whom I have since meet, thank you for your questions and expressed support. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Larry - since you're gonna jack my thread, tell us:
What do you think about background checks, the musings of Josh Horowitz and insurrectionist theory? Honestly, I'm all for you promoting your campaign, but don't you think it would benefit from it's own thread?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On a more serious note one could choose a PIN code when getting their driver's license and a system could be put into place for all transactions requiring a background check, certain employment, certain public services and anything else. The person performing the background check inputs the ID number and the buyer types in his PIN and approves the "purpose" for the background check. The background check central computer gets a general request for a check and returns all "hits" for prohibited items, cannot work with children, cannot vote, cannot own a firearm etc. and a transaction ID. The retail terminal filters all items other than those related to the issue selected and prints a report saying "eligibility to own a handgun, no records found" or some such. This way the system only knows a background check was requested and not why the background check was requested. The local terminal only reports the pertinent information and not other private information about the buyer. Tracking number is for manual auditing purposes only. This is essentially a list of prohibited persons that can be checked without being firearms specific so, unlike today there isn't some direct correlation between people in the database and people who own guns. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So in this case, it's basically sending each polling place a list of the limited number of people eligible to vote at that polling place... no more than a few hundred per polling place. That's a lot more practical than sending a list of every convicted felon to every gun shop in the country Quote:
__________________
- Rich |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Make the slip good for 10 days or even just 1 day. Then you can have one or two terminals at the show and buyers can pre-qualify and carry their slips around with them. Seller calls the 800 number and types in the transaction code and computer reads back the ID # associated with the transaction and once compared to the buyers ID you have a valid background check.
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Then you have Horwitz’s second paragraph. He puts the idea of equality forward as America’s most important idea. He has it all backwards. Equality, despite the ground it has gained in the 20th Century, is not the most important idea of America. Liberty is. And liberty as we all should know, but many apparently do not, is in fact anathema to equality. The two are mutually incompatible concepts. To quote Goethe, “Legislators and revolutionaries who promise equality and liberty at the same time are either psychopaths or mountebanks.” Of course, I really doubt Horwitz is a true proponent of any sort of real liberty, and it seems obvious just from his initial language that he is a leftist, leftism being the enemy of freedom. Horwitz extols the equality of suffrage that is the norm in America today, but of course equality in suffrage is a very flawed concept. A person on welfare who is ignorant of the world and easily swayed by bribery and who also owns nothing of substance and has no job is not the equal of a man who is financially successful, owns landed property, and is completely independent, while also being well-learned and intellectual; the value of their votes should be reflective of this obvious inequality. His vote is only worth as much as someone else’s vote by force of law, not by the facts of the matter. In this issue, though, I digress. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conclusion in my second post... Last edited by bigstick61; 10-25-2009 at 7:38 PM.. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
And for my conclusion...
Horwitz makes it clear that he does not believe in checks and balances, which ultimately, must have a hard means of enforcement. I think he may actually understand but not want such checks. Statism and collectivism both depend upon the absence or undermining of checks and balances (which is why democracy, which Horwitz extols, is so conducive to such ends). He seems frightened by checks and balances. I think this is rooted in a deeper fear, which results in envy, the sort of envy which drives a man’s actions. To explain this I think it is best to once again quote von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who explains it quite well: Quote:
Last edited by bigstick61; 10-25-2009 at 7:40 PM.. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Ryan
__________________
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Bravo, bigstick61!
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed" "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785 |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
wow, that was very interesting. He makes some good historical references, but his problem is he interprets them wrong. GW and Co didn't draft the constitution simply because of a rebellion, and the rebellion wasn't just because of guns. The articles of confederation were too one sided and monarchical (that's a word right?) the constitution layed out a system of checks and balances to ensure that one system didn't overstep their boundries (at least they thought so until being a politicain became a carreer not a duty). This is a great example of a dumb, smart person. He makes some very valid points: ie, why would someone want to make a threat of violence at a health care rally? but i think he also missinterprets their actions. I see it more along the lines of "look, i'm going to exercise my constitutional rights and you can't stop me". And yes, the courts have ruled that it is the right of the individual ("the people"), not the state ("people" as a whole), to own guns. I think it's high time we stop bickering about the issue and start educating the opposition. put a gun in their hands since most of them have probably never held one, and start demanding that they take the criminals rights away, not ours, and then SHOW OUR SUPPORT FOR BILLS THAT DO SO!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame. People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Horwitz' innate affinity for Maoist dogma, (unsaid in this interview) that "political power comes from the barrel of a gun" is embodied in his assertion that a gunny is more equal now that he is armed, and Horwitz and others are less equal now that they are not armed.
His, and other anti-gun types', hoplophobia is their projection of their worst fear; their feeling of helplessness in the face of weapons that are not even deployed. They project that an armed citizen at a rally is intimidating the others there; that any possession of guns by simple citizens is a horrifying potential of the Maoist mass murder. He is a tool, as many have been, for those who have sought to overthrow this nation's ideals of independence for the country and for individuals embodied by personal liberties. They attack those liberties and that independence, through the argument of equality. Consider his argument with the condition of your enslavement by those like him, so that someone who feels like destroying our liberties doesn't have to fear when they walk into the night.
__________________
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Let's him try this on for size.
If the only people carrying guns are law enforcement agents wouldn't that squash political freedom by intimidating the citizenry?
The guy is a tool and that whole, the second ammendment is really about the state militia is a bunch of socialist garbage. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|