How to Regain The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

E

Ed Brunner

New member
Obviously we are gun people and from what I see very intelligent,current and well-informed.

Basically we no longer enjoy the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

What can we do to regain this right?
What are your ideas??


Contest entry
 
Welcome Ed, glad to see you.

I can only give you what works for me, in that I feel I'm doing something constructive: Become an educated, informed activist. This requires a multiple approach...
1) Read and understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
2) Read and understand the supporting documents written by the Founders, e.g. Federalist papers, etc
3) Read and understand the history of gun(weapons) control thruout the world
4) Read and understand the history of US gun control....e.g. The Sullivan Act, US vs. Miller, etc.
5) Know the positions political candidates and appointees have...from the local school board, city council, county on up to Federal.
6) I hate to say and admit this, but become a single issue voter...if not germane, then look for certain parallel or associated positions on other issues.
7) Participate in forums, debates, etc such as this
8) Be vocal with associates, friends, neighbors
 
DC's covered a lot of ground.

I might add something that speaks to the issue of "mindset": Refuse to be a victim. (Though, anyone following DC's advice will naturally arrive at this mindset).
The refusal to be a victim helps us to stay focused on the real issues, to lead by example and to pick and choose our battles wisely.

Welcome Ed. Thought you'd never get here!
Rich
 
to the above I can only add that I feel it is important to RECRUIT..
bring your friends to shoot.
Instead of going golfing with the boys from the office, invite them to a sporting clays or 5 stand course.

Get the women out!

Next time you have a birthday gathering or whatever, have it at a gunclub.. gravitate everyone towards the firing line.. save the beers for later.

Show people that guns aren't just "weapons", afterall, people seem fine with the idea that a "club" isn't a weapon when it is taken in the context of Golf.
 
Thank you for the warm welcome-you knew it would just be a matter of time.

DC What you say is true and you know that I respect your opinions and judgement.
I dont think it is necessary to know so much about the law and the history of law.

We need to know that federal,state and local laws have been passed which deprive us our rights and which are unconstitutional.

I agree with your solution to be a single issue voter but I dont think that is the answer either.

In my innocence I think that all it would take is for this Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of gun control laws.

And there I am -making DC's argument.

So in a roundabout way I conclude that I dont know the answer.
 
Ed..
Yeah I knew it was just a matter of time...but gads, do you "old folks" have to be so slow?
smile.gif

This is an excerpt from an e-mail I wrote this morning to another participant on these forums:

" As we both know, the NRA bungled this for years by taking the sporting/recreational position. In my way of thinking (obviously not original) this is a fundemental issue way past guns, which are merely a contraversial example and focus point. To me this is about individual rights and the role/power/authority the government is allowed to have.
There are numerous examples of the 1st, 2nd,4th,5th,7th,9th and 10th Amendments being ignored, violated or subverted by any number of methods. I believe that rather than the sneaky and distorted methods currently being used to pervert the spirit of the Constitution, this must be faced openly and above board and people must state their position in the open.
Only then can we face reality and choose how we wish our form of government to be."

As for the Supreme Court hearing another 2nd A case...I very much doubt they will for the reasons I've stated previously. And, from a practical anti-gun position, why should they? If they do, they lose...they have been extremely successful thus far with the devious and distorted methods they use currently. Most people don't know enough about the law and the Constitution to realize that "they" have been constantly legislating unconstitutional laws left and right. That is why I personally believe that we need to study the law etc. Its not just guns, its everything: RICO statutes that have been liberalized across the board are another example. The whole Bill of Rights is being shredded everyday.

As a relevent side note...Yesterday on either 60 Minutes or Dateline there was a piece on how a great many police departments intentionally falsify crime stats, and most of these LEO agencies doing it are in states with strict gun control. Example is Philadelphia which has under reported crime by 15% along with lessening the severity of crimes reported i.e calling robbery burglery and rapes become assaults. Why would they do this? To show that "gun control works".
 
DC, how nice to be so prominently featured in your post as: "another participant"
wink.gif


anyway... you should have your fax shortly and I saw a doozy tonight.
Discovery channel had an episode of "Jsutice Files" on this evening entitles "Armed & Dangerous". I must admit that I missed the first 15 minutes or so of the hour program, but 95% of what I did see was not anything but ANTI-GUN. (no I was not surprised) they had a whole lot of police officers saying things like "When everyone is carrying [guns] 'just in case' somthing happens...well, somthing _will_ happen." then they cut to a story about a traffic incident turning into a shooting.
Or, they had one officer say "I've never seen one of these things [cheap, small caliber weapons] stop a crime, but I've seen countless used to comit them."
They would go to each commercial break with a "scary" statistic. examples:
The ratio of guns to people in the US is the highest in the world.
In 1996 70% of the population said they supported a ban on assault weapons.

The one relatively "pro-gun" segment was on a guy in southern california who had been in 4 shootings when his shop was broken into to. He had killed three people and been shot at least 4 times. The made the guy look like a nut, admitedly, he took his defense very seriously. He had a gun in a holster mounted under his counter every three feet all around his shop., hey, god bless him, right? BUT, then he starts talking about how most states that allow people to carry guns don't really prepare them to carry the guns responsibly, then he says he still doesn't feel safe thanks to the guns, he just feels "alive"

I taped it, Did anyone else catch it?
 
Got 'em Rob...
Just was trying to preserve your sanity before the fax requests came rushing in.

I suspect you will end up having quite a few LD fax markers
smile.gif


Rob faxed me 35 pages from the Senate hearings he attended. I will scan them and put them up on a website.

He is looking for the "sage" words of Sen. Toricelli. From what Rob told me, its a classic example of why some folks shouldn't hold office, much less be allowed to vote
smile.gif


Thanks alot Rob
 
yeah, Torricelli was almost sad. At one point he was quoting from opinions of Supreme court members on some abstract case involving the limits of the Bill of Rights and he ask Stephen Halbrooke in a very condescending way if he was _even familar_ with these cases.. halbrooke didn't miss a beat and replied, "yes, sir, in fact, there is a chapter in my latest book dedicated to them.."
There were audible chuckles in the rather reserved room....
I faxed his opening statement to someone last week, but I have lost it, I can get a copy if some just _has_ to see it.....
I guess I will actually hook up my full page scanner sooner or later....
 
One of the transcripts Rob sent me is the statement of:

Dennis Henigan (Gen'l Counsel HC,Inc and Director, Legal Action Project of the CPHV) to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.

While you are waiting for Rob's stuff, I urge you to read some of Henigan's past writings. One of the reasons I urge people to read the history and laws of gun control is that unless you understand them, you can't debate this man, you wouldn't know his position is built on smoke.

http://www.handguncontrol.org/legalaction/c3-index.htm
 
Women are the key. They rule the world we live in! They are the one in charge and if you dont believe that then your in denile. It is sad but true... If we want to keep our guns - take your sons AND your daughters shooting... educate the ladies who are going to be sitting in the seats of power. I love teaching women to shoot... they are much better students and smell better too. No, really, they are teachable and dont insist they way pappy taught them wa the best way.
 
Kod, youare 100% correct. The natural direction in the RECRUIT phase right now is for women. A significant numberof children today grow up without a fll time guy around. These kids may never get exposed to shootin, huntin, etc. unless the women raising them are involved.
My wife is the NAtional Spokesperson for the NWTF's Women in the Outdoors program, I highly encourage you to get women involved in this if you hear of one being held in your area. Other programs like this one are also graet to introduce women to the outdoors (inlcude the BOW, becoming an Outdoors Woman program..., it is sometimes much easier for the women to acclimate to the activites being presented to them without a gunrange full of guys looking at their butt.
 
One of my friends said we need a TWO Million Men and Women March on Washington DC. But he quickly added that few people could afford to take off and travel,miss work etc.
But it got me thinking and thats dangerous.

What it we threaten to put TWO MILLION LAW-ABIDING PRO-GUN VOTERS in Washington to support the repeal of unconstitutional gun laws?

You know there is support for it and in the age of the computer we could certainly find them.

And who knows there might even be sponsorship or whatever.

And if we get ALL of these people ONLY to contact their Congressmen it would have an effect.
 
Now you're talking Ed.

We have to play the same game as "they" do...ye old squeaky wheel.

Case in point (both ways)..there is a person running for the local assembly seat here....an ex assistant DA, very "feel good". Her platform is relatively non-specific except for the warm homilies and feel good stuff. All in all she seems like a nice woman, tho rather naive. About 2 weeks ago she decided to make guns an issue...she portrays the NRA as "the radical gun lobby" who threaten the very fabric of society and the safety of all children; and she swears the get "assault rifles" off the streets....and she implies that gunowners are the cause of all thats wrong with society. Myself and a few others have flooded her office with phone calls, e-mail, e-mail and letters to the editor, phone calls to local talk shows etc.
There was a pre-election speech, she blathered on about guns...her standard gunspeak line...a reporter asked her point blank if she considered gunowners as criminals. She was taken aback and she backpeddled. She ended up implying that gunowners were guilty of negligence and selfishness, that if we would consent to stricter gun laws all society's problems would be fixed. When the reporter pointed out that (the district covers 2 counties) the district is mostly rural and has relatively little gun crime and most folks have firearms here, she choked and changed the topic. The reporter followed up with "Your position seems to address the needs of areas like Los Angeles, etc but you aren't running there; how does your platform represent your district?"

My point is that we have to make a stink and let others become aware of logic. The reporter probably wouldn't have debated the gun issue had she not been made aware of the large percentage of gunowners and how guns, in this area at least, are largely a non-issue. Spoon feed those that can help us.
 
I hate to say this - old hat... but instead of 2 million people marching on Washington DC... How about 2 million people simply writing a LETTER to the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, and follow up letters to senators. That would flood his mailbox... and our senators mailboxes. I am not talking about postcards like the NRA give out to send. These get tossed easily. But a REAL LETTER. Expressing that you put them in office, and they have the obligation to hear you. Among Polls, One vote represents 100,000 people. If they figure the same for letters... and we send in 2 million... We may not be able to afford to take the time from work or for the trip to DC - but we can all shuck out 32 cents for a stamp. FAXES work great as well - A flood of Faxes... Hmmmm... interesting.
 
Kodiac makes an excellent point.

Handwritten envelopes, 1 st class mail is always looked at. They never know whats in it. The bottom line in their lives is the constituency.
 
Something else to tell them.Tell them that you will not support their candidacy, you will not vote for them and you will not contribute to their campaign unless they reply to your letter and tell you if you can depend on them to support the Second Amendment.

I can just about guarantee that you will get a favorable answer. And then you have something to work on. And if he/she does well send money!
 
I saw that Discovery Channel report on gun violence. It was rather disgusting and very unbalanced. They had 1 story on justified self defense. Even that was sort of warped. The narrator kept introducing each segment with "Instead of just giving up or moving..." insinuating that it would have been a better choice for this guy to turnover his life's work to some hoods. I just wanted to ask the Cops on that show if they thought that handguns were such a pi** poor way to defend oneself, why they always insist on carying them around everywhere they go.

As for the 2 mill man march on DC. How about 2mil E-mails/letters to DC a day. That might get their attention.
 
DC: On the one issue voting thing - I agree, but therin lies much of our partisan trouble. Most pro-gun politicians are also advocates of outlawing all abortions, instituting prayer is schools, etc., which I find alienates them from many who believe in the right to weapons. My wife, for instance, says that abortion could be outlawed, infringing upon the free will of the people, while guns cannot, as most would not turn in their guns if they were outlawed. Therefore, if a canditate is pro-gun/anti-abortion, they lose my wife's vote on the abortion issue, but gain mine on the gun issue. Where do some people get off saying the government cannot butt into one part of our lives because of the Constitution (Second Amendment - guns), but then say the government can butt into another despite the Constitution (First Amendment - speech & religion)? Whether you agree with my (and/or my wife's) views, you must admit that the whole idea of selective advocacy of the Consitution is ludicrious. Don't EVEN get me started on the ACLU!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top