Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT DENIED 6-15-2020**

[kcbrown]

Nope, the government cares what the people think. Those elected want to be re-elected.

Those who are elected answer to those who made their election possible. That is not the voters. The votes are not the product of the voters, they are the product of those who provide "information" to the voters that the voters use for the purpose of generating their votes. The voters are merely the mechanism by which votes are generated. The input into that mechanism is what controls the output. That input is the "information" the voters use. That information is not sourced by the voters themselves -- it is sourced by the media, which in turn answers to those who own and operate the media. Those who are elected answer to those who control the media, and to anyone those people in turn answer to.

However, a large protest may not be reflective of general attitudes. 100K sounds like a lot, but there are well over 200 million eligible voters in this country.

When the protest in question is the largest in human history and still has no effect, I can conclude nothing else than that mass protests are no longer effective. Therefore, mass protest is no longer a viable means of peacefully securing liberty. That is why my belief is that a Constitutional Convention is, if the Supreme Court continues on its current path, the only remotely viable peaceful option left standing.

If that doesn't work, and it's highly likely it won't, then we'll be at the point the vast majority of the world's population throughout history has been at: we'll be forced to choose between servility and death. No other options will be available.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[rplusplus]

100 times this!

Look at Social Media. You can get 30+ Million people to post something but until those 30+ Million go and vote... That is where change comes.

[sholling]

Those who are elected answer to those who made their election possible. That is not the voters. The votes are not the product of the voters, they are the product of those who provide "information" to the voters that the voters use for the purpose of generating their votes. The voters are merely the mechanism by which votes are generated. The input into that mechanism is what controls the output. That input is the "information" the voters use. That information is not sourced by the voters themselves -- it is sourced by the media, which in turn answers to those who own and operate the media. Those who are elected answer to those who control the media, and to anyone those people in turn answer to.

Sad but very-very true. However it's important to point out that in most cases the majority of stockholders have very little control of the message. There are a very few exceptions like the NY Times and a few politically activist mega investment funds, but for the most part the desires or even the opinions of the "owners" are not taken into account by the political activists running the show. For example CNN's Jeff Zucker seems to care little about CNN's dismal ratings. And the fact that he was hired after driving NBC into the tank, and hasn't been fired for CNN's horrific ratings means that it's probable that his bosses value a leftist message more than they value CNN's credibility and advertiser's dollars.

Unfortunately there are a lot of sheeple, perhaps a large minority or bare majority of the American people (including some of my more "moderate" friends) that refuse to believe that the mainstream media are biased. They are 100% convinced that no major news outlet (other than Fox News) would risk its credibility and therefore its long-term stream of advertiser dollars by allowing biased reporting. Based on that delusion they swallow pretty much all of the BS the media feeds them hook, line, and sinker. These are the sheeple that vote the way the media steers them. Garbage in ---> garbage out.

[sholling]

Furthermore, mass demonstrations are really only a symptom or manifestation of ongoing social change. They aren’t the direct cause thereof.

The biggest problem with mass demonstrations is that they rely on honest reporting to make them effective. All that the mainstream media has to do is over-report the size of the crowd at say a "million" mom march and under-report the size of a conservative march by a factor of 10 or so, and they can hype or limit the effectiveness of any mass demonstrations.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/?singlepage=true

[kcbrown]

Sad but very-very true. However it's important to point out that in most cases the majority of stockholders have very little control of the message.

It's not the majority of stockholders that have control over a company, it's the board of directors.

The board of directors is the entity which places top management in positions of power to control the company. The top management of the media is what determines the general theme that the media company tries to portray or, at least, is responsible for hiring and overseeing those that do make such a determination.

In any case, the board of directors would intervene if the media company were doing something it didn't like, up to and including adopting a theme which doesn't sit well wit it. Seeing how the members of the board are the "elite" of the country, it follows that they will, in general, be heavily in favor of stripping the citizenry of its right to keep and bear arms since, after all, a disarmed populace is one that is less of a threat to them.

There is, from what I've seen and read, massive cross-pollenization exists on the boards of the largest companies, of which the media companies are surely representative.

Unfortunately there are a lot of sheeple, perhaps a large minority or bare majority of the American people (including some of my more "moderate" friends) that refuse to believe that the mainstream media are biased. They are 100% convinced that no major news outlet (other than Fox News) would risk its credibility and therefore its long-term stream of advertiser dollars by allowing biased reporting. Based on that delusion they swallow pretty much all of the BS the media feeds them hook, line, and sinker. These are the sheeple that vote the way the media steers them. Garbage in ---> garbage out.

Precisely. People tend to believe whatever the media tells them. As a result, they act based on that. At the polls, that translates to massive control over the votes of the country by the media and, by proxy, whoever sets their policies.

There is a further effect: that power is not something those who operate the media are unaware of. It makes the politicians beholden to the media. The media is responsible for the fact that the politicians have their position. It is for this reason that the front-running candidates in the Presidential elections have all been very similar in many ways. In the end, they answer to the same people, and that is most assuredly not the voters. It is for this reason that government does not respond to the will of the people except with respect to those things that the voters are able to see for themselves and for which, for whatever reason, the media is unable to control or direct their desires. For anything but those few obvious things, the politicians respond to the will of those who control the media, not the will of the people. And those who control the media have "friends" that they surely trade favors for.

Power like that is something that one can, if one has it, use to good advantage. One can "sell" the ability to control the politicians to others for favors and such. And if that kind of power can be used in that way, then it will be, and thus is, used in that way.


Much of this is conjecture, since it is not directly observable. But logical deduction inevitably leads here, because we know from experience that those who wish to exercise power tend to do so without regard to anything other than their own ultimate satisfaction. Hence, if a power advantage can be used to good personal effect, it will be. The above is the natural consequence of the intersection of that fact with the kind of control the media has.

[mag360]

We could start it right now. Pick a date to rally in 2016 at the capitol say 6 months before elections, and you cant let it get sidetracked by any other issues.

Get it on the radio, forums, youtube channels like hickok or nutnfancy, its certainly doable as the civil righters did it in the 60's.

[kcbrown]

Get it on the radio, forums, youtube channels like hickok or nutnfancy, its certainly doable as the civil righters did it in the 60's.

The civil rights movement in the 60s had the backing of the media. We have the opposition of the media.

What worked with the civil rights movement in the 60s thus cannot work for us here. We will have to find a different path.

[Rumline]

It's not the majority of stockholders that have control over a company, it's the board of directors.

[snip...]

Seeing how the members of the board are the "elite" of the country, it follows that they will, in general, be heavily in favor of stripping the citizenry of its right to keep and bear arms since, after all, a disarmed populace is one that is less of a threat to them.

There is, from what I've seen and read, massive cross-pollenization exists on the boards of the largest companies, of which the media companies are surely representative.

This is in line with what I learned in a Political Science class in college. We had to read the book Who Rules America? and I found it fascinating because it talked about the realities of the ruling class in the US and how tight-knit their circles are. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

[elSquid]

Those who are elected answer to those who made their election possible. That is not the voters. The votes are not the product of the voters, they are the product of those who provide "information" to the voters that the voters use for the purpose of generating their votes. The voters are merely the mechanism by which votes are generated. The input into that mechanism is what controls the output. That input is the "information" the voters use. That information is not sourced by the voters themselves -- it is sourced by the media, which in turn answers to those who own and operate the media. Those who are elected answer to those who control the media, and to anyone those people in turn answer to.

Ah, but who do the people that the people who control the media answer to, answer to?

If that doesn't work, and it's highly likely it won't, then we'll be at the point the vast majority of the world's population throughout history has been at: we'll be forced to choose between servility and death. No other options will be available.

So let's take the worst case scenario: SCOTUS actively rules against CCW - basically leaving it up to the states - AW, and 10+ round magazines.

Effectively, what we have currently here in CA. At that point, the choice is between servility or death?

-- Michael

[kcbrown]

Ah, but who do the people that the people who control the media answer to, answer to?

Heh.

So let's take the worst case scenario: SCOTUS actively rules against CCW - basically leaving it up to the states - AW, and 10+ round magazines.

Effectively, what we have currently here in CA.

No. If Congress passes an anti-carry law (an inevitability given current demographic trends. I expect the Republicans to fail to gain control over the Senate, and expect the Democrats to continue to strengthen their hold), then there will be no 2A protection against it, and it will override the states. It'll be some time before that happens, though, so yes, the immediate aftereffect of the failure I describe is what we currently have in CA.

At that point, the choice is between servility or death?

Admittedly it won't be immediate in that way (I forgot to say "eventually". Meant to, but didn't). But once the people have been stripped of their right to arms, there will be absolutely no check on the government's power. And when the government has no check on its power, servility is the inevitable end result, as proven repeatedly throughout history.

This, of course, requires that SCOTUS retreat from Heller by way of refusal to enforce it. Given what we've seen of SCOTUS post Sandy Hook, I think that's highly likely.

[elSquid]

No. If Congress passes an anti-carry law (an inevitability given current demographic trends. I expect the Republicans to fail to gain control over the Senate, and expect the Democrats to continue to strengthen their hold), then there will be no 2A protection against it, and it will override the states.

The general population's attitude on handguns has been improving over the last 50 years, and states have been moving to shall or constitutional carry for the last 30 or so.

Why is an anti-carry law then inevitable?

Oh, and...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

( And as an aside, I sure as hell hope that everyone else reading this is contributing to NRA-PVF/etc. If you aren't participating in the political process, I'm not sure that you have any grounds to complain. )

Admittedly it won't be immediate in that way (I forgot to say "eventually". Meant to, but didn't). But once the people have been stripped of their right to arms, there will be absolutely no check on the government's power. And when the government has no check on its power, servility is the inevitable end result, as proven repeatedly throughout history.

So Heller will be tossed, and all firearms will be banned...eventually?

This, of course, requires that SCOTUS retreat from Heller by way of refusal to enforce it. Given what we've seen of SCOTUS post Sandy Hook, I think that's highly likely.

Refusal to enforce it? What does that mean?

You have a right to a functional handgun in your home for personal protection, period.

Now we see how the contours of the right are defined. It may not be happening fast enough for you, but that's how the process works.

-- Michael

[riftol]

Gay or straight or any other type of marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is an unenumerated constitutional right.

If the issue of same-sex marriage comes before the SCOTUS, I think the Court will rule that the union of one man and one woman, the traditional definition of marriage, is unconstitutionally delimiting and as such, must be extended to include the union of persons of the same sex.

Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923)

The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual...to marry, establish a home and bring up children

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

[IVC]

Marriage is an unenumerated constitutional right.

Sure, but the problem is in *defining* the term.

Do you have a concise definition that is both sound AND does NOT include any of the *traditional* elements of the definition such as love, living together, two people, consummation, raising children, etc.?

[kcbrown]

The general population's attitude on handguns has been improving over the last 50 years, and states have been moving to shall or constitutional carry for the last 30 or so.

Why is an anti-carry law then inevitable?

Because the demographics of the country are changing towards favoring the Democrats, who are utterly against the right to arms. We'll soon be losing Texas and Florida as red states, for instance. Not quite yet, however.

Oh, and...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

Interesting. How accurate has that site been at predicting senate elections in the past?

( And as an aside, I sure as hell hope that everyone else reading this is contributing to NRA-PVF/etc. If you aren't participating in the political process, I'm not sure that you have any grounds to complain. )

Yep. This.

So Heller will be tossed, and all firearms will be banned...eventually?

At a minimum, Heller will be ignored by the Supreme Court, meaning cert denied to all such cases that come to it, once the composition of the Court changes such that progressives outnumber non-progressives.

Refusal to enforce it? What does that mean?

It means that SCOTUS will do for "in the home" and other 2A cases what it has been doing for carry cases: denying cert when we inevitably appeal a lower court decision which sides against the right.

You have a right to a functional handgun in your home for personal protection, period.

Is that so?

Then explain the district court's decision in Osterweil v Bartlett. Explain Jackson v San Francisco. Explain NRA v BATFE.

Understand this: you have no rights when the courts refuse to uphold them. A right which the judiciary refuses to uphold is a right that does not exist in practice.

Now we see how the contours of the right are defined. It may not be happening fast enough for you, but that's how the process works.

I hope you're right, and that's all it is. I really do. But when the "contours of the right" are defined in such a way as to conform only to the narrowest possible interpretation of Heller (even to the point of excluding protection of the right in secondary homes, an outcome that was barely avoided), then I call BS on the notion that we're "winning".