What threat does the public expect, will it tolerate?

[lowimpactuser]

I don't advocate anything illegal and if that's your takeaway clearly you need to read this post again.

However, on big social issues, the court is concerned with legitimacy and their own personal survival, both professionally and literally, ability to breathe. There is no threat from the right against either of those, so deciding for the right in any real way will never happen. Sure, there are "victories" like remanding the gay wedding cake case to Colorado, where the baker has faced more lawsuits from gender confirmation cakes, and the legal bill keeps going up.

No one and nothing has been affected for either SCOTUS or the Colorado courts, so they will continue to play the long game to see if that breaks the defendants, and perhaps a narrow victory that will offer no protection to the next baker. The message will be clear: bake the cake or the process will break you before you get a ruling. And the bakers will bake or not become bakers.

If that's your idea of a victory, then fear not, we can still win the baker case and we can win gun rights cases. If your idea of a victory is practical exercise of a right, no chilling effects, etc etc. then there is no way we can win nationally because there's no reason for our black robed masters to do so.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by John Browning

The larger question is:

Do we still live in a functioning Republic with a Supreme Court that can read and interpret clear Constitutional text, or are we duty bound to ignore any and all immoral laws from an unjust tyrannical government?

If the Supreme Court wants to be taken seriously, they need to act in a way that shows they are serious. If not now, then never, and if never, then none of this matters any more.

Well said.
If you want to live as a free person, then you are going to have to violate certain laws. I think most of us would agree that the gun laws imposed on the citizens are unjust and immoral. Which of those laws an individual ignores, and dealing with the consequences if caught, are up to that individual. The SCOTUS has had ample opportunity to demonstrate their stance on the 2A; seems that they DGAF.
This time certainly seems to be their final “show the world what we think”; if this one is also ignored, then you are totally 100% correct that none of it really matters. Go and live your life as a free person to the degree that you can, as we will not see things improve during our lifetimes, unless there is a total and complete reset. For the younger folks, that might actually be a better route.

[ShadowGuy]

Not to veer too much into OT, but the recent attacks in NYC has highlighted the importance of being able to defend yourself and bystanders have been criticized for not intervening. In a state and city that almost entirely bans the carry of weapons, these current events demonstrate the paradox. So NY, what is it? How does a small stature elderly woman defend herself? I could see these news stories pressure the court to grant cert.

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by CalAlumnus

Never say never... But I have to think, if SCOTUS doesn’t take this one, they’re just not going to opine on carry within the next few decades.

6 Republican appointees, not an election year, a circuit split, and Clement. What more could they reasonably want?

I agree. A pass on this case suggests to me SCOTUS is spineless and has no interest in any substantive 2A cases. Sure there may be a couple more "pure" cases they could wait for, but there is no good reason to - this case meets the need.

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Frankly the electoral questions the last election brought up were culture war/civil war issues the court ducked. The justices on the right who refused to hear them showed they care more about public order than they care about law.

Given that framework, I add the much simpler addendum to KcBrown's excellent work and modelling that these justices showed all you need to know is if they feel public order will actually be threatened (not legally, but practically) and you can be sure they'll vote to maintain order over justice.

That may be true, but it's a reasonable assumption the conservative justices (and all reasonable people) know there won't be mayhem in the streets just because they strike down no-issue carry laws that only effect a handful of cities/states. There will still be reasonable carry requirements in place so the concern about public order declining is overblown.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

That may be true, but it's a reasonable assumption the conservative justices (and all reasonable people) know there won't be mayhem in the streets just because they strike down no-issue carry laws that only effect a handful of cities/states. There will still be reasonable carry requirements in place so the concern about public order declining is overblown.

I don't think you quite grasped the point of the riots and antifa. It's a threat that mayhem in the streets of those exact locales is an omnipresent threat. And these particular places happen to be the perhaps 5 metro areas that the judges and their elite class care about.

Antifa technically supports gun rights, but mixed with the racial justice riots the point is anarchy is just around the corner if things go wrong. Status quo or not opposing the policies of those who hold the violent trump card is the way to bet or vote. And that's not for gun rights.

People don't understand what the point of riots and civil unrest are. It's a threat, a proof of concept, a show of force that the ruling class better go their way or else they'll rip the mask off and show the ruling class doesn't control them and then there is a cascade of others realizing they can ignore the ruling class as well and soon they lose all power from a loss of legitimacy. This lack of understanding real power is why the right and non-lefties will simply never win.

[Citizen_B]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

I don't think you quite grasped the point of the riots and antifa. It's a threat that mayhem in the streets of those exact locales is an omnipresent threat. And these particular places happen to be the perhaps 5 metro areas that the judges and their elite class care about.

Antifa technically supports gun rights, but mixed with the racial justice riots the point is anarchy is just around the corner if things go wrong. Status quo or not opposing the policies of those who hold the violent trump card is the way to bet or vote. And that's not for gun rights.

People don't understand what the point of riots and civil unrest are. It's a threat, a proof of concept, a show of force that the ruling class better go their way or else they'll rip the mask off and show the ruling class doesn't control them and then there is a cascade of others realizing they can ignore the ruling class as well and soon they lose all power from a loss of legitimacy. This lack of understanding real power is why the right and non-lefties will simply never win.

Gun rights are for those trying to follow the law. If rioters want to escalate and bring firearms into the equation, they will do it anyway, legal or not. The Antifa riots getting seriously violent is a small issue when the big picture is in mind. While the moderate-left has been turning a blind eye to their shenanigans, riots getting seriously violent with firearms isn't going to be tolerated even by them.

Suppose SCOTUS finds there is a right to carry by the law abiding. Some firearms are used in the riots and there's real bloodshed. I can guarantee the response from law enforcement, whether that be local or Federal, is going to be overwhelming. Even if incumbent local politicians don't have a spine, the local population is in no way going to tolerate that kind of violence. In a sense, letting the kids play with matches is going to get them permanently grounded.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

Gun rights are for those trying to follow the law. If rioters want to escalate and bring firearms into the equation, they will do it anyway, legal or not. The Antifa riots getting seriously violent is a small issue when the big picture is in mind. While the moderate-left has been turning a blind eye to their shenanigans, riots getting seriously violent with firearms isn't going to be tolerated even by them.

Suppose SCOTUS finds there is a right to carry by the law abiding. Some firearms are used in the riots and there's real bloodshed. I can guarantee the response from law enforcement, whether that be local or Federal, is going to be overwhelming. Even if incumbent local politicians don't have a spine, the local population is in no way going to tolerate that kind of violence. In a sense, letting the kids play with matches is going to get them permanently grounded.

Which part of the revolution won't be televised or advertised did you miss?
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/23/89353...right-and-left
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/us/ch...ing/index.html
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/1...ooting-denver/
https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/portla...d-friend-says/
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...tonomous-zone/
https://spectator.org/bernie-bro-sho...ying-baseball/
I'd tentatively include Route 91 harvest festival/Vegas shooting, but the ISIS vs. Antifa question would undermine the well-documented and indisputable events above.

[Citizen_B]

It looks like we're not going to be able to agree on the broad level of threat Antifa currently and potentially in the future poses. Saying I don't grasp it or missed it, is incorrect.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

It looks like we're not going to be able to agree on the broad level of threat Antifa currently and potentially in the future poses. Saying I don't grasp it or missed it, is incorrect.

Not gonna derail, sent PM if you want to continue. I don't mean to browbeat nor deliver unwelcome diatribes but I do believe the threat people expect is LA riots; when targeted and smaller and incidents that can be brushed off is the likely route and more dangerous.

[John Browning]

If the Government exists to SUPRESS the rights of the citizens rather than ENSURE the rights of the citizens, then the citizens have a duty to rebel against an unjust and tyrannical government.

Your rights are given by God and the government has shown they have very little interest in upholding your rights or defending your physical security. At that point, it makes no sense to comply with unjust laws that destroy your freedom and safety.

I'm extremely hopeful that the Supreme Court has the courage to address this so that rebellion of the states and citizens becomes unnecessary.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by John Browning

If the Government exists to SUPRESS the rights of the citizens rather than ENSURE the rights of the citizens, then the citizens have a duty to rebel against an unjust and tyrannical government.

That cannot be true because if it was then forums would be complicit in suppressing rights for banning people for advocating what you suggest.

If this is message is read as advocating that then clearly you misread this post and I urge you to reread it in it's entirety.

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by Citizen_B

I agree. A pass on this case suggests to me SCOTUS is spineless and has no interest in any substantive 2A cases. Sure there may be a couple more "pure" cases they could wait for, but there is no good reason to - this case meets the need.

they don't want 500 BLM with bullhorns in front of their house... they are SCARED.......so they tow the line.. everybody that MATTERS got the memo before the election call.. I've said it in here many times... we are not going to get away with 'clean' protection of our rights..... so, store those jet skis, get into shape and lose some weight to fit that gear that is collecting dust... and make peace with it all...

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by GregW948

they don't want 500 BLM with bullhorns in front of their house... they are SCARED.......so they tow the line.. everybody that MATTERS got the memo before the election call.. I've said it in here many times... we are not going to get away with 'clean' protection of our rights..... so, store those jet skis, get into shape and lose some weight to fit that gear that is collecting dust... and make peace with it all...

Even that is waiting for something to happen, instead of being the one that makes things happen. For all the supposed bravado or toxic masculinity of the right, it is the most passive, flaccid magical thinking group that ever expected to take power by waiting alone, in their room for things to magically happen.

To quote a far better writer than myself:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

If this is construed in any way as advocating anything illegal then clearly you've misread and I urge you to read the post again. All I am saying is people waiting quietly at home for the right time was tried in Russia circa 1917.

[IVC]

Funny that the left literally lost their mind when Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy and went full retard with court packing narrative when ACB replaced RBG.

Their analysis of the courts working for the left must be slightly different from the OP's. Someone here is quite wrong - it can't be both ways.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by IVC

Funny that the left literally lost their mind when Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy and went full retard with court packing narrative when ACB replaced RBG.

Their analysis of the courts working for the left must be slightly different from the OP's. Someone here is quite wrong - it can't be both ways.

Hi there!

It's a tiny bit more complicated than "left" or "right". Specifically, individual rights tends to be more of a lefty thing...

but...

The individual rights the left pursues are generally ones that benefit the left or large donors or fracturing normal society. Gun rights isn't a fracturing thing like gay rights or free speech, but rather weakens the hand of the state, vs. weakening the hand of society. The courts simply don't limit the hand of the government but weaken pre-existing society.

The police can still racially profile, issue IQ tests, and carry guns where normal people cannot. Large corporations have effective end-runs around these issues.

The right does win things, like interstate commerce, like corporate speech, like corporate rights. Not individual rights that tend to align with traditional, non-capitalist structures.

The state has cops who get to carry guns and shoot people with state provided defense. Corporations and the wealthy can hire off-duty cops or retired ones and get broadly the same abilities. Normal people who have no right to protection from the state, and cannot afford to hire a cop are the ones screwed, vs. right to bear arms effectively creating the ability of militias to make police for towns suddenly less necessary and smaller societies economically viable.

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by IVC

Funny that the left literally lost their mind when Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy and went full retard with court packing narrative when ACB replaced RBG.

Their analysis of the courts working for the left must be slightly different from the OP's. Someone here is quite wrong - it can't be both ways.

People are STILL trying to figure this all out which is crazy... there is nothing to figure out, the left is out in the open with their hypocrisy and commie BS... and the American conservative by-in-large is still looking under the bed for explanations ... its almost like we are the children and the commies are the adults.. seriously... we need to grow up...

[pratchett]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

There is no threat from the right against either of those...

If I challenge you on this, are you going to move the goalposts by saying the credible threats of political violence against the Court by right-leaning actors are overblown, disproportionate, or a false flag conspiracy?

[lowimpactuser]

Ooooh, someone said moving goalposts.

Sounds like a nerve was struck and I am about to be told I have to answer X question and fetch the stick or I'm a bad person, denier, conspiracy theorist, racist, or somesuch.

Ignoring a question or not taking a position is going to be used as evidence of my guilt or complicity right?

[pratchett]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Sounds like a nerve was struck

You're reading weird emotions into my post that just aren't there, based on nothing.

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

and I am about to be told I have to answer X question and fetch the stick...

I have no expectations.

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

or I'm a bad person, denier, conspiracy theorist, racist, or somesuch.

You think if you don't answer a question, I'm going to conclude you hate people for the color of their skin? That's a really bizarre inference. I don't understand.

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Ignoring a question or not taking a position is going to be used as evidence of my guilt or complicity right?

Complicity in what? Did you do something? Are you confessing? Do we know each other? I'm really confused.

I asked a plain-text question, in standard American English, without implication of subterfuge, to judge the extent to which it would be productive to engage in debate with you. I'm really sorry your experiences have led you to immediately suspect everyone around you of having bad motivations.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by pratchett

You think if you don't answer a question, I'm going to conclude you hate people for the color of their skin? That's a really bizarre inference. I don't understand.

Nothing personal to you. I haven't read your post history, but when people ask about goalpost moving they also tend to be familiar with rhetorical tactics like leading questions and ad hominem.

Originally Posted by pratchett

I asked a plain-text question, in standard American English, without implication of subterfuge, to judge the extent to which it would be productive to engage in debate with you. I'm really sorry your experiences have led you to immediately suspect everyone around you of having bad motivations.

Hey no problem, none of us make it out of here alive.

You seem good-faith enough I will proceed as if you are interested in an answer vs. getting a scalp.

I'm inherently skeptical of anything the government and law enforcement say about threats unless they release ALL their evidence and documentation of threats. So to assess the real threat to courts by the right wing I'd take a look at the original, unredacted evidence and give you an answer. The current game is based on taking the FBI or other agencies at their word which I simply refuse to do when making a threat assessment.

After all, their internal threat assessments have missed the Boston Bomber's murderous brother, the recent Colorado guy, missed the Parkland guy despite multiple calls to the FBI, literally supplied a working bomb that killed people in the original 1990s WTC bombing, and apparently the Michigan wolverine militia appears to be another entrapment by a paid FBI informant, not to mention the apparent "inability" to give a motive to the Las Vegas shooting, to the King Sooper Colorado shooting, the Congressional Baseball shooting, the Borderline Bar shooting.

So at this point I believe in fully vetting and using original sources to make conclusions rather than secondary sources like government agencies that don't allow access to primary sources. I mean apparently the FBI managed to ask questions of the associate of the Tsarnaeve brother and managed to make him mad enough they had to shoot him before they could really get answers, so I'm not necessarily going to just trust their professional interrogation skills and broad assessment without verification.

[pratchett]

High five for answering my question. We should talk sometime, seriously.

Anyway, it seems like your fundamental issue would be with trustworthy sources, but I'd argue that the government probably can't publish the unredacted text without revealing sources and means of gathering that information. Plus, since the government would nearly always be the recipient, we couldn't likely get the information elsewhere. Very interesting dilemma.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by pratchett

High five for answering my question. We should talk sometime, seriously.

Anyway, it seems like your fundamental issue would be with trustworthy sources, but I'd argue that the government probably can't publish the unredacted text without revealing sources and means of gathering that information. Plus, since the government would nearly always be the recipient, we couldn't likely get the information elsewhere. Very interesting dilemma.

Absolutely. I've learned over the years what some will do is get people actually interested in asking deep questions to play rhetorical games and then ad hominem rather than actually engage in a conversation they see they won't score points in, so I am more skeptical than I have been in the past. That said, when I am convinced there is a conversation I'm happy to chat.

And yes, I think today we prize sources and techniques over freedom, liberty, and accountable auditable government. If consent means INFORMED consent, then the electorate simply isn't allowed to be informed so the idea of consent of the governed is simply a lie today.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Well said.
If you want to live as a free person, then you are going to have to violate certain laws. I think most of us would agree that the gun laws imposed on the citizens are unjust and immoral. Which of those laws an individual ignores, and dealing with the consequences if caught, are up to that individual. The SCOTUS has had ample opportunity to demonstrate their stance on the 2A; seems that they DGAF.
This time certainly seems to be their final “show the world what we think”; if this one is also ignored, then you are totally 100% correct that none of it really matters. Go and live your life as a free person to the degree that you can, as we will not see things improve during our lifetimes, unless there is a total and complete reset. For the younger folks, that might actually be a better route.

"If you want to live as a free person, then you are going to have to violate certain laws."

As many people have investigated and reported on, you're likely already violating multiple local, state and federal laws in your everyday life. A few of these you may be aware of but most of the time you had/have no idea that you were/are doing something illegal.

Here's just one example of what I'm talking about : "How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender" https://www.amazon.com/How-Become-Fe.../dp/1982112514

Imagine getting thrown into the klink and having to explain to REAL criminals that you got pinched for selling swiss cheese with too few holes in it. It reminds me of Arlo Guthrie's song 'Alice's Restaurant' where the 'real' criminals shunned him because he got arrested for littering...

Anywho, the question going forward in today's world is : how much of the Young Pioneer's [progressive 'new' democrats] 'Brave New World' will you tacitly/actively go along with until you say 'enough' and 'go to the mattresses' and opt for civil disobedience instead of following the lemmings?

A good example are places like Connecticut and New York [state] who have already shown their unwillingness to go along with those state's crackdowns on 'assault weapons' which resulted in a VERY low compliance rate [5-20% depending on the data source]. Oddly enough the same thing seems to be occurring in Australia and New Zealand where there seem to be quite a few 'anti socialist elements' who don't want to go along either...

Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary, etc. etc...

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Absolutely. I've learned over the years what some will do is get people actually interested in asking deep questions to play rhetorical games and then ad hominem rather than actually engage in a conversation they see they won't score points in, so I am more skeptical than I have been in the past. That said, when I am convinced there is a conversation I'm happy to chat.

And yes, I think today we prize sources and techniques over freedom, liberty, and accountable auditable government. If consent means INFORMED consent, then the electorate simply isn't allowed to be informed so the idea of consent of the governed is simply a lie today.

Eventually, all this talking you two are doing will come to a stop... and action will have to be taken... the faster we accept this, the faster we can fix this nation... the issue with conservatives is that we tend to over-analyze things and that is what has got us in this mess to begin with... we put too much stock in 'due process' and accept it when it does not go our way EVEN IF IT IS WRONG.... just look as decade after decade leaves us, country gets worse.. we need to go back to torches and pitch-forks

[pratchett]

Originally Posted by GregW948

...we need to go back to torches and pitch-forks

I'm so sorry our discourse is distracting your desire to burn and stab people who politically disagree with you. What was I thinking.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by GregW948

Eventually, all this talking you two are doing will come to a stop... and action will have to be taken... the faster we accept this, the faster we can fix this nation... the issue with conservatives is that we tend to over-analyze things and that is what has got us in this mess to begin with... we put too much stock in 'due process' and accept it when it does not go our way EVEN IF IT IS WRONG.... just look as decade after decade leaves us, country gets worse.. we need to go back to torches and pitch-forks

I appreciate your sentiment and urgency to act.

When the 1/6/2021 people who invaded the capitol got there... they put their feet on desks and posed. They had no plan. They did nothing to "stop the steal", nothing to stop the inauguration, nothing to take power but instead handed their opponents the story to justify further crackdowns against them.

Will to act is good, but without a plan you're running around like these guys.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ve...-spree-n125766

Just as california law dictates that it's illegal to carry a gun without a permit but legal to have a gun and use it in justifiable use of force, and just as a good shoot can become a bad shoot if you shoot one second before and one second after- timing and justification matters. If you mess up the time you're a murderer, if you get the time right you're a justifiable hero. Get the time right. Get the planning right.

I advocate nothing illegal or worthy of investigation and fully intend to bankrupt any and all parties who violate my sovereign rights to express myself in accordance with Brandenberg v. Ohio. I will say those who DO contemplate actions I never, ever dream of nor advocate to get their ducks in a row. The difference between a murderous assault on democracy and heroic saving of the republic is enough senators agreeing to stab Julius Caesar together and covering for the others in their plot. The senators had a plan, had an organization, and the power to protect each other. Any plan that doesn't involve that but talks of individuals or somehow everyone magically gets on the same page without planning and organizing ahead of time plans to fail and to arm their opponents.

Remember the founders spent 20 YEARS getting the Sons of Liberty and other organizations in place before they went and declared independence. Failure to plan = planning to fail.

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by pratchett

I'm so sorry our discourse is distracting your desire to burn and stab people who politically disagree with you. What was I thinking.

Its a figure of speech ... and IF it actually happens, just close your eyes and let the men do the fighting... also, I would love to hear what DUE PROCESS we conservatives have left? you want political process with peace right? so tell me, where is that DUE PROCESS? its dead in the water... we can be 100000% correct both morally and ethically.. AND have the technical law on our side but some commie fkking judge, panel, or committee will just overturn, block, or ignore all of it..

I am on your side man.. but, fear not.. if things keep going the way of commie land, you will HAVE to like me

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

I appreciate your sentiment and urgency to act.

When the 1/6/2021 people who invaded the capitol got there... they put their feet on desks and posed. They had no plan. They did nothing to "stop the steal", nothing to stop the inauguration, nothing to take power but instead handed their opponents the story to justify further crackdowns against them.

Will to act is good, but without a plan you're running around like these guys.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ve...-spree-n125766

Just as california law dictates that it's illegal to carry a gun without a permit but legal to have a gun and use it in justifiable use of force, and just as a good shoot can become a bad shoot if you shoot one second before and one second after- timing and justification matters. If you mess up the time you're a murderer, if you get the time right you're a justifiable hero. Get the time right. Get the planning right.

I advocate nothing illegal or worthy of investigation and fully intend to bankrupt any and all parties who violate my sovereign rights to express myself in accordance with Brandenberg v. Ohio. I will say those who DO contemplate actions I never, ever dream of nor advocate to get their ducks in a row. The difference between a murderous assault on democracy and heroic saving of the republic is enough senators agreeing to stab Julius Caesar together and covering for the others in their plot. The senators had a plan, had an organization, and the power to protect each other. Any plan that doesn't involve that but talks of individuals or somehow everyone magically gets on the same page without planning and organizing ahead of time plans to fail and to arm their opponents.

Remember the founders spent 20 YEARS getting the Sons of Liberty and other organizations in place before they went and declared independence. Failure to plan = planning to fail.

Historians will say 500 years from now... only IF we can fix this republic, that there should have been 1 million people at the W/H with AR15's to block an illegitimate take over of the country... conservatives are going to be shamed by future generations...

Jus' sayin'

How, when , where , who and all that jazz , who knows .. I am not claiming to have all the answers.. I am just making obvious opinions.. I write statements to make us think about what the hell we are doing..

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by GregW948

Historians will say 500 years from now... only IF we can fix this republic, that there should have been 1 million people at the W/H with AR15's to block an illegitimate take over of the country... conservatives are going to be shamed by future generations...

Jus' sayin'

How, when , where , who and all that jazz , who knows .. I am not claiming to have all the answers.. I am just making obvious opinions.. I write statements to make us think about what the hell we are doing..

One more time for those in the cheap seats.
Organizing a bunch of men with AR15s is at the very least concerning to federal agencies and gives them reason to investigate and insert paid informants, if not outright sedition as judged by our political masters and gives them all the power to stop your planning cold.
Organizing people now, RIGHT NOW, for political discussion, lobbying, and other first amendment protected activity is legal and lets you build trust that you can spend later in more... shall we say, costly and harder ways.
If you insist on "just have 1 million gun owners MAGICALLY show up and engage in a coup, on a particular date, with no prior organizing or logistics" then you're planning to lose and complain bitterly that the magical rebellion never happens. It never does, it didn't happen in 1776, it didn't happen in 1775, it doesn't happen. Ever. And if your only plan for success depends on something that has never happened in history then you plan to lose.

Marxists tried for over 50 years for a spontaneous workers revolution to happen and failed. It took the Visionary Vladimir Lenin to point out this doesn't happen and reform Marxism into Marxist-Leninism, which we refer to as Marxism because virtually all pure Marxists are gone because of the wild success of Leninist vanguard/professional political cadre principles. If you insist ONLY a pure grassroots, unorganized group suddenly is organized overnight you have decided on defeat with more steps.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by Oxnard_Montalvo

"If you want to live as a free person, then you are going to have to violate certain laws."

Anywho, the question going forward in today's world is : how much of the Young Pioneer's [progressive 'new' democrats] 'Brave New World' will you tacitly/actively go along with until you say 'enough' and 'go to the mattresses' and opt for civil disobedience instead of following the lemmings?

A good example are places like Connecticut and New York [state] who have already shown their unwillingness to go along with those state's crackdowns on 'assault weapons' which resulted in a VERY low compliance rate [5-20% depending on the data source]. Oddly enough the same thing seems to be occurring in Australia and New Zealand where there seem to be quite a few 'anti socialist elements' who don't want to go along either...

You're ignoring Californians with the same fork-you answer to the question of registration.

DOJ estimates that ONLY 8-10% of semi-auto guns were registered in the last 2 registration periods. Simple math indicates the owners of 90-92% of the weapons had the testosterone NOT TO COMPLY. I'd say good for them.

[lowimpactuser]

https://twitter.com/LPTexas

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/...88310673494016

This is why the right loses. These principles that hold as long as the noose is placed around your neck by a process that can be manipulated you will not object.

The very failure of people to understand liberty is only protected by unfree soldiers, that the militias which MAY have a chance of working (and your sainted George Washington HATED the militia and believed they were completely unequal to the task of securing freedom) require the willing sacrifice of freedom to countrymen so that the unwilling sacrifice doesn't go to invaders.

[rkt88edmo]

Threats - what did society do to adapt to these? What was the argument for the status quo? What was the shift? Was the success outcome that was desired achieved?
Clean Air
Clean Water
Climate Change
Guns
Drunk Drivers
Seatbelt & Helmet use
Food Safety
Drug Safety

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by rkt88edmo

Threats - what did society do to adapt to these? What was the argument for the status quo? What was the shift? Was the success outcome that was desired achieved?
Clean Air
Clean Water
Climate Change
Guns
Drunk Drivers
Seatbelt & Helmet use
Food Safety
Drug Safety

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/0...civil-society/
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/r...russian-media/
Operation Mockingbird
The way things are changed is documented, most don't want to believe though.

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

One more time for those in the cheap seats.
Organizing a bunch of men with AR15s is at the very least concerning to federal agencies and gives them reason to investigate and insert paid informants, if not outright sedition as judged by our political masters and gives them all the power to stop your planning cold.
Organizing people now, RIGHT NOW, for political discussion, lobbying, and other first amendment protected activity is legal and lets you build trust that you can spend later in more... shall we say, costly and harder ways.
If you insist on "just have 1 million gun owners MAGICALLY show up and engage in a coup, on a particular date, with no prior organizing or logistics" then you're planning to lose and complain bitterly that the magical rebellion never happens. It never does, it didn't happen in 1776, it didn't happen in 1775, it doesn't happen. Ever. And if your only plan for success depends on something that has never happened in history then you plan to lose.

Marxists tried for over 50 years for a spontaneous workers revolution to happen and failed. It took the Visionary Vladimir Lenin to point out this doesn't happen and reform Marxism into Marxist-Leninism, which we refer to as Marxism because virtually all pure Marxists are gone because of the wild success of Leninist vanguard/professional political cadre principles. If you insist ONLY a pure grassroots, unorganized group suddenly is organized overnight you have decided on defeat with more steps.

How is it a coup? its an illegal government.... its not like Biden is legitimate and we have to put up with 4 years of BS in a typical political process and environment...... your nice history lesson is apples and oranges to this issue now... we are on the verge of losing 1st and 2nd Amends...

voting... lobbying... etc etc HA HA HA really? where have you been the last 6 months?

I never said 'hey everybody pick up a gun and go run to the capitol'

I am just saying there have been some unprecedented violations against the populace IGNORING due process... when you have no due process, you have nothing... so what is the next few little steps left? voting? lobbying?.. yaaaa OK...

people that are hanging on to this 'old' system called democracy that has been ripped away by the commies will sooner or later understand that we need to take different 'angles'

listen, both of our arguments are just pissing in the wind anyways... lets just agree to disagree and withdraw... tell ya' what though... the left isn't fragmented like this... they run circles around us when it comes the cohesive collective..

[Epaphroditus]

Well, where is the well regulated militia that is local folks regularly drilling, working logistics, communications, community action against crime, etc ... now wonder why the security of the free state is left wanting.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers shouldn't be disregarded so lightly.

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

Well, where is the well regulated militia that is local folks regularly drilling, working logistics, communications, community action against crime, etc ... now wonder why the security of the free state is left wanting.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers shouldn't be disregarded so lightly.

I agree. The Second Amendment is important for a number of reasons, one being that it provides a resource in time of war by maintaining a population already trained and comfortable with the handling of weapons.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Originally Posted by -hanko

You're ignoring Californians with the same fork-you answer to the question of registration.

DOJ estimates that ONLY 8-10% of semi-auto guns were registered in the last 2 registration periods. Simple math indicates the owners of 90-92% of the weapons had the testosterone NOT TO COMPLY. I'd say good for them.

I didn't remember reading any fact based articles about California regarding this so I didn't add California, so it wasn't so much ignoring as not commenting about something I had no knowledge of...

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by GregW948

How is it a coup? its an illegal government.... its not like Biden is legitimate and we have to put up with 4 years of BS in a typical political process and environment...... your nice history lesson is apples and oranges to this issue now... we are on the verge of losing 1st and 2nd Amends...

Now who is henpecking and debating words and terms instead of actually doing something?

Originally Posted by GregW948

voting... lobbying... etc etc HA HA HA really? where have you been the last 6 months?

Again, taking out of context what I said they are useful for, not the outcome themselves.

Originally Posted by GregW948

I am just saying there have been some unprecedented violations against the populace IGNORING due process... when you have no due process, you have nothing... so what is the next few little steps left? voting? lobbying?.. yaaaa OK...

people that are hanging on to this 'old' system called democracy that has been ripped away by the commies will sooner or later understand that we need to take different 'angles'

I have not argued with you once but you're either too stupid to read carefully or too emotional to see when someone isn't arguing with you.

Originally Posted by GregW948

listen, both of our arguments are just pissing in the wind anyways... lets just agree to disagree and withdraw... tell ya' what though... the left isn't fragmented like this... they run circles around us when it comes the cohesive collective..

No you came in MY thread to pick a fight with me and showed how simple and prone to magical thinking you are. The boomer mentality speaks louder than any of your words. You believe in interrupting me, saying some Forrest Gump type words and magically everyone just falls in line behind you (Yes SIR! Whatever you say SIR!) sacrificing everything because you said something while you risk nothing.

Your magical thinking is based off a flawed perception of history where Woodstock, civil rights, Vietnam protests and all the orgies and "cool" things your generation enjoyed were spontaneous so you want that same spontaneity to happen again to make "change" happen like in the late '60s and early '70s. You were lied to about your history: none of these things happened without planning behind the scenes. The domestic and foreign intelligence trained operatives helped the left tremendously behind the scenes.* If you're too lazy and too stubborn to actually see the truth and modify how you fight based on new information you have chosen to doom your grandchildren or if you failed to vote for the future by having children, doomed your role in history books to be that of a coward and failure.

The left fights BLOODILY. If you're unfamiliar with the Clinton/Sanders rift you don't read and actually learn about your opponents. However they have methods, organizations, and leaders to patch things up behind the scenes and unite against a common enemy. If you're unfamiliar with how many leftists were killed after Lenin won and the same pattern in every left-wing takeover I recommend cracking a book. Or humbly asking me and I'll point you in the right direction.

Dust yourself off and learn to work with people instead of lecturing me that organizing is unnecessary or go away and rant at your TV and go to the proprietary unpopular website of Bill O'Reilly and wonder why all your heroes from Limbaugh (RIP) to O'Reilly to Trump never achieve any lasting victory.

*https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-.../dp/1909394122 (free intro here: http://centerforaninformedamerica.co...ration-part-i/)

[GregW948]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Now who is henpecking and debating words and terms instead of actually doing something?


Again, taking out of context what I said they are useful for, not the outcome themselves.


I have not argued with you once but you're either too stupid to read carefully or too emotional to see when someone isn't arguing with you.


No you came in MY thread to pick a fight with me and showed how simple and prone to magical thinking you are. The boomer mentality speaks louder than any of your words. You believe in interrupting me, saying some Forrest Gump type words and magically everyone just falls in line behind you (Yes SIR! Whatever you say SIR!) sacrificing everything because you said something while you risk nothing.

Your magical thinking is based off a flawed perception of history where Woodstock, civil rights, Vietnam protests and all the orgies and "cool" things your generation enjoyed were spontaneous so you want that same spontaneity to happen again to make "change" happen like in the late '60s and early '70s. You were lied to about your history: none of these things happened without planning behind the scenes. The domestic and foreign intelligence trained operatives helped the left tremendously behind the scenes.* If you're too lazy and too stubborn to actually see the truth and modify how you fight based on new information you have chosen to doom your grandchildren or if you failed to vote for the future by having children, doomed your role in history books to be that of a coward and failure.

The left fights BLOODILY. If you're unfamiliar with the Clinton/Sanders rift you don't read and actually learn about your opponents. However they have methods, organizations, and leaders to patch things up behind the scenes and unite against a common enemy. If you're unfamiliar with how many leftists were killed after Lenin won and the same pattern in every left-wing takeover I recommend cracking a book. Or humbly asking me and I'll point you in the right direction.

Dust yourself off and learn to work with people instead of lecturing me that organizing is unnecessary or go away and rant at your TV and go to the proprietary unpopular website of Bill O'Reilly and wonder why all your heroes from Limbaugh (RIP) to O'Reilly to Trump never achieve any lasting victory.

*https://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-.../dp/1909394122 (free intro here: http://centerforaninformedamerica.co...ration-part-i/)

you need a nap...