Will this be our "The Port Arthur massacre"

C

Cascade1911

New member
I've listened to a number of pro gun people say, when the idea of draconian gun control laws being enacted is presented, brush it off with a "It will never happen".

I hope they are right. I would urge you all to not get too complacent.

Some seem to think that the worst that might happen is a return to the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban and figure if they buy a couple of AR's and a few magazines they will be set until the law is rolled back again. That's probably what the Australians thought as well.

I urge you to actively get involved. Educate yourselves. Educate non gun owners (in a positive way). I'm sure many of you already are. Some of you probably have suggestions on how we can do more.

If we all limit our activity to debating the issue on this forum and similar venues I believe we are going to loose this battle for the 2nd Amendment.
 
Your post is very true
we must get more involved and let our voice be heard.
Hunters don't think this is just about AR 15's it is also very much about your shotguns and rifles. There is a need for all the hunters to get involved in this fight as well. Sign the petitions and write your representatives, do all you can to support the 2nd amendment because if it falls it is only a matter of time the rest of our freedoms will fall as well.
 
I believe that for some anti's that the AWB is a nose under the camel's tent. Today they will not openly advocate for a sweeping ban on all firearms, or even a national registration... but the more organized of them are certainly looking at "one step at a time".

Not to get too deep into politics and ideology, but gun-grabbers and animal rights activists often find common cause, so if the scary rifles can be banned, there will be a new push to ban all firearms, since they don't like hunting anyway.

Like I said, one step at a time, they will say behind closed doors. It's just another case of things "working under the radar".
 
This last week on the Internet there has been a lot of false bravado written by many of us that are pro-gun with the attitude that since we agree on what the other side is planning then that is exactly what will happen. The govenrment is huge, keeps rolling on after individuals die off and has all the time in the world to incrementally roll over our rights one small piece at a time. I believe "they" will come out with full force and try a ban that far excedes what 'we' think will happen. Right now everything is conjecture but we all know that there are personalities in Washington that are itching to go down in the history books as great heros and saviours of the masses. We really need to be pro-active till the very end of this saga to retain our rights.
 
My letter to my congressman

Sir,
In light of recent events and talk of possible new laws, I feel it necessary to address a serious flaw I see on both sides of most of the arguments I see when it comes to our rights and the Constitution.

This does not apply only to the 2nd amendment but all 10 of the original amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

These are NOT a list of rights for the people but rather a list of rules for what the government CAN and CANNOT do.

I have heard no one state this more clearly than a man I have a great deal of respect for, I frequently read his posts on an internet forum. He goes by the name 44 AMP and the following is a direct quote from one of his posts.


“Virtually every other discussion I have heard in many years about the 2nd Amendment misses one fundamental point.
And that is, that the Amendment is NOT about our right to arms, but about what the government may DO about our right to arms. And that is the key point "shall not be infringed".
The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw breath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.
The Bill of Rights is just a list of things the government CANNOT DO with, and about our rights.
It’s not about hunting, and not about personal protection. The 2nd Amendment isn't even directly about us having that "equal force" to the military, it’s about the government not being legally able to prevent us from having that "equal force" while remaining within the boundaries of the Constitution.
Look also at the wording of the First Amendment. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, religion, & assembly (those were understood). It says "Congress shall make no law...."
It is a check on the power of the government, not a gift of rights to the people. Our founders believed our rights did not come from a government, neither a king, nor a democracy.
Is it important to the current gun control discussion? I don't know. What I do know is that our Constitution is a list of rules for the Government, NOT us, the citizenry. The Founders set it up to control the government, NOT the people. They felt the government should be restricted, and the people should be free.
Seems to me, that hasn't been the case, for far too long. Perhaps, that is part of the reason we are where we are today?”
Click to expand...


Please remember this fact when you debate on either side of any discussion relating to our Constitution. Any other twist one would choose to put on this is a perversion of our founding fathers’ intent.

Whether we agree with the Constitution or not is irrelevant it is the foundation of this great nation. It is not to be changed or tampered with to suit our current beliefs or political interests. The Constitution was written to protect these United States of America and her people.

Thank you for your time.
 
The problem with that argument, is that our grandfathers and great grandfathers allowed the government to circumvent the 2nd amendment restrictions and pass laws that clearly infringe on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. So much ground was lost before any of us were born that anyone who believes in the literal interpretation is a criminal. Indeed homeland security has defined the term "constitutional extremist" as a brand of terrorist. Therefore if you believe that our constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that government has no power to limit our armaments, you are a terrorist. The time for revolution came and went before we were born with barely a whimper. The only way to truly experience the natural right to posses weapons capable of defending yourself from any threat is to accept the fact that you are a criminal, a terrorist and interact with your government acknowledging that fact. There are no more citizens, there are subjects and criminals, which is the root cause of much of the violence in our society. All free men are now criminals and we have private corporations that are paid to keep them in cages. More laws, more criminals until there are bars on every door and window and razor wire around every neighborhood. Maybe then government will finally be able to keep us safe.
 
The pen is mightier than the sword

klyph3
The problem with that argument, is that our grandfathers and great grandfathers allowed the government to circumvent the 2nd amendment restrictions and pass laws that clearly infringe on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. So much ground was lost before any of us were born that anyone who believes in the literal interpretation is a criminal. Indeed homeland security has defined the term "constitutional extremist" as a brand of terrorist. Therefore if you believe that our constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that government has no power to limit our armaments, you are a terrorist. The time for revolution came and went before we were born with barely a whimper. The only way to truly experience the natural right to posses weapons capable of defending yourself from any threat is to accept the fact that you are a criminal, a terrorist and interact with your government acknowledging that fact. There are no more citizens, there are subjects and criminals, which is the root cause of much of the violence in our society. All free men are now criminals and we have private corporations that are paid to keep them in cages. More laws, more criminals until there are bars on every door and window and razor wire around every neighborhood. Maybe then government will finally be able to keep us safe.
Click to expand...

While I agree with part of your opening statement

our grandfathers and great grandfathers allowed the government to circumvent the 2nd amendment restrictions and pass laws that clearly infringe on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. So much ground was lost before any of us were born
Click to expand...

the rest of your post is an extreme view and I beg to differ. My stand on the Constitution will be defended cerebrally through contacting my elected officials and my voting practices, as well as conversations with friends and family to encourage them to do the same.

In no way do I advocate fear tactics, threats of violence or anything of the sort to achieve my goals.

If there is any type of revolution to be won in this nation it will be won with the mind and our most valuable tools are our votes and our willingness to take the time to contact our elected officials and express our stance on the issues.

"The pen is mightier than the sword"
Click to expand...
author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839
 
OEF-Vet said:
Whether we agree with the Constitution or not is irrelevant it is the foundation of this great nation. It is not to be changed or tampered with to suit our current beliefs or political interests. The Constitution was written to protect these United States of America and her people.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, whatever the Constitution says, it means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. And, with due respect for the Supreme Court, they can't read plain English.

Our moderator here, Frank Ettin, is an attorney and he has taken me to task on numerous occasions for suggesting that any and all firearms control regulations are unconstitutional. Frank is right -- and he's wrong.

He is right in that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation. That means as of today, that's what the Constitution "officially" means.

However, my view is that the Supremes are wrong. (So much for humility, eh?) What does the 2nd Amendment actually say? "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty straightforward. There's no reference in there to "reasonable regulations." It doesn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." It is a simple, blanket, all-encompassing statement.

And what is a regulation other than an infringement?

So, in reality, we are not dealing with the Constitution itself, we are dealing with the Constitution as interpreted through the shifting lens of Supreme Court interpretation. In a perfect world these would be the same thing. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.
 
"The pen is mightier than the sword"
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a few examples of that. The pen might support the sword or try to dull the sword but without the sword the pen ain't nothing but a stick full of colored liquid.
Without Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge and York Town the written papers would just be fireplace tinder. Time and time again it's the guys with the sword that give or take power from the guy with the pen.
 
Examples of that

Shotgun693
I'd like to see a few examples of that.
Click to expand...

Many of the wars in the early history of man had been fought over religious beliefs based on written texts even the modern jihadists are motivated by religious texts.

18 May 1274
The Second Council of Lyon issues its Crusade decree, Constitutiones Pro Zelo Fidei. Under the leadership of Pope Gregory X, the council decides that for the next six years, a tithe of all the benefices throughout Europe will be collected to fund the next Crusade.


Our modern wars, conflicts, police actions or whatever else they might be called have all started and ended with signed documents.

The sword in the hand of a warrior can kill many but the texts that motivate are far more costly in the toll of blood.
 
What politicians think they can do and what they can actually do is two different things.
Obamacare passed because he could couch it in a free lunch for a great many people in this country even if in reality it was not. He could double speak it so that it sounded like it was.

Attacking a fundamental constitutional right where there is no mass of people to offer a free lunch too is horse of a different color. The SC already ruled in Illinois against a gun ban. Now some other state will institute what SC already struck down in another state??

I dont think the most rabid anti gun person or politician harbors the fantasy that the government can pass a law and sweep thru the south midwest southwest taking peoples guns without a firestorm they themselves dare not start ensuing.
Each time something happens that can be used some liberal politicans will jump on a bandwagon to please their most rabid minority block of voters with no expectation of it having much success.
And as many politicians are calling for more guns as are calling for fewer if the news is to be believed. Just have to wait and see but I dont think the sky is falling just yet though i have written my congressman about this issue and we all should.
 
Suggestion:

Some time ago Shotgun News published a small pamphlet by RKBA historian Clayton E. Cramer, entitled "Original Intent." As far as I know, it is still available for purchase, and there's a reduced price if you buy it in bulk.

I propose everyone who has an interest in this buy a packet of 25 or 50 of these and mail them to the legislators you wish to address. Read through it, highlight the key points (although the entire pamphlet is key), and put flags on the pages you highlight.

http://store.intermediaoutdoors.com/products.php?product=Shotgun-News-Original-Intent-Brochure
 
The anti-gunners "will" win part of this battle, they have too much going for them in this at this time. This recent incident, combined with the media squarely choosing a side, and....gun advocates having basically zero big-name/influential personalities on our side practically assures they will.

We must keep up the advocacy, and get some pop-culture names other than Ted Nugent on the team...the main stream considers him a nut.

The NRA needs to start courting the media...but for right now, it's too late for that.

You ammo hoarders were right, I was wrong...
 
The NRA needs to start courting the media...but for right now, it's too late for that.
Click to expand...
They've never needed to do so before. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but we're accustomed to the media being against us.
 
The anti-gunners "will" win part of this battle, they have too much going for them in this at this time.
Click to expand...

I agree that we are not likely to come out of this unscathed. I do believe however that if we don't fight tooth and nail we could be looking at anti-gun laws to rival England or Australia. The return of the Clinton era bans are the bare minimum our adversaries are looking at. I'm already hearing proposals for further restrictions of magazine capacity as well as making the proposed bans retroactive (some gun advocates are very persuasive in their argument that a return to the old Assault Weapons ban would be ineffective because so many weapons are already in public hands, anti's are happy to counter "well lets go get 'em").

Put it this way, I'm not a big fan of AR's, many gun owners I know are not. The attitude shared by many of these are " pft, let 'em take the AR's, I don't like 'em anyway". "Who needs a gun like that"? Well, even if that is your attitude and even if you think the battle is going to be lost you better fight one heck of a holding action or you might find yourself lucky to keep a bolt action .22 LR.

One thing I was hoping to see on this thread were suggestions on the best way to advocate our position. How can we actively defend our rights?

The obvious:
Join/ donate to the NRA-ILA (an imperfect group but the best we have IMO)
Join/ donate to you state organization (NYSRPA in NY).
Email State and Federal Legislators be they pro or anti.
WRITE to above legislators. (I believe snail mail may add weight to your statements).
Discuss CALMLY with friends, neighbors and co-workers. Avoid name calling etc.
Counter the Anti's where you can. Be the voice of reason. If you find yourself surrounded by idiots just fall back. Don't self destruct.
Educate yourself on the issue. I have lots of feelings and beliefs but I often find myself wishing I had FACTS to back up those beliefs. I'm working to do better.

I'm not sure where to go from there. I've contacted a club that that tends to be more active politically then the one I'm a member to see if they need an extra pair of hands.

One thing I'm looking for is a list of pro gun stats and facts. You know, crime stats, quotes etc. I'm starting to compile my own but hate to re-invent the wheel.

Probably the number one thing we can do long term is get non gun enthusiasts interested. The more people we can get involved the better. Keep it safe and sane.

What else can we do?
 
BTW, thanks Aquila Blanca. To all, Aquila's link is good, the document is $1.00 per and free shipping. I ordered four to start. Cost me a whopping $4.16 w/ tax.
 
And as many politicians are calling for more guns as are calling for fewer if the news is to be believed. Just have to wait and see but I dont think the sky is falling just yet
Click to expand...

I certainly hope I'm being Chicken Little. Having said that:

I've certainly not seen the reports of Congressmen or Senators calling for more guns. (Mind you, I'm in rural NY and even the more conservative newspapers are at best silent.).

The Federal government has banned firearms in the past so don't think they can't do it again. I've never seen the climate better for anti's.

Many non gun owners I know who have been supportive or at least indifferent to gun laws in the past are now saying things like "who really needs an "assault weapon" or a 18 round "clip" (like fingers on a chalk board) or "so many" guns or "so much" ammo. Heck I even know some gun owners mumbling some of the above.

I have NEVER seen the media beat the drum so hard or so openly. Gannett Newspaper has put up an interactive map showing where every permit holder in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York lives, They are working on Putnam county and I would guess every other county in the State. I would think, if Gannett can get away with it here they and other liberal organizations can do it elswhere unless stopped. The NY Daily News is sending out e-mails with prominent links to gun ban petitions. Yahoo, ever liberal and anti-gun is putting up "news" on every shooting it can get it's hands on in an attempt to keep stirring the pot.

While I believe that living in a deep blue state may be shading my perceptions I'm willing to bet those of you that live in bright red states are probably also getting a somewhat false picture. I'll be more than happy if three or six months from now you can post here that you "told me so".
 
"What else can we do?"

Once again, IMHO, the NRA needs to reach out to and take more "media hostages" from the main stream and current pop-culture.

I have looked at this issue and come up with the opinion that we need to drop the Ted Nugents, stop depending on the Charleston Hestons and pro-gun/old and unknown politicians...and bring in modern/popular mouthpieces like a John Cena, Will Smith, Anderson Cooper, etc... We don't have to like them, but we need their star power. The mainstream, young audience we need to assist in our defense does not identify with Charlston Heston or Ted Nugent.

The NRA is well meaning, but blew it in the pop arena, which is where this war was lost last time, and seems to be once again.... In presidential elections, the candidates spend little time in states they have a lock on...they look for new/undecided voters, we need to do the same.

Politicians win battles on the golf course..the NRA has to win this on the shooting range.....with modern, pop-culture advocates.
 
I'll agree that someone a bit younger than Mr. Heston would be nice and Ted Nugent certainly didn't help the cause. Having said that I can't say that I know John Cena, Will Smith or Anderson Coopers stance on guns. I'm given to understand that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are pro gun but are they willing to be NRA spokespeople? Same for Johnny Depp.

All that aside, when asking "What else can we do?" I'm talking about as individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top