~Janet Reno~
US Attorney General
~Bill Clinton~
April 12, 2000 as reported by the Rocky Mountain News.
~Rahm Emmanuel~
Their crimes are evident.
Their intent has been stated.
Our Liberties and Rights are hanging by a thread.
We have a peaceful nature, noted by our Founders, that allowed them to trust us as armed-to-the-teeth militiamen, above any and all governments in the world. And now they are taking advantage of that same peaceful nature to disarm and demoralize us and spitting in our faces while they do it…
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be? When does the Sleeping Giant awake again to discover intruders in his house?
Get’s some popcorn for the show…
[quote]2busy wrote:
Get’s some popcorn for the show…[/quote]
*Gets
That one always bugs me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
BTW, some of the liberals are finally waking up and seeing the reality of what this gun control push is:
I couldn’t have been more overjoyed to read this article from a hard-left outlet. We are all Americans, and we all have to stand together in defiance of the one thing that could possibly allow tyranny to gain a solid foothold in this country. There are some VERY solid arguments in that article. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
Yes, it was a good read.
However, in it we do find the same tried and failed attempted analogy between free speech and gun rights used by all the “reasonable” people who want a “national conversation” about “reasonable” gun control (you know…so that hunters and sportsmen can maintain their rifles and shotguns so very integral to the 2nd Amendment which was written to protect the shooting sports): All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowd. You can’t threaten to kill the president. You can’t publish someone else’s words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights."
I’ve even heard these very words by some who’ve happened to post on this thread as well as other gun control threads, for instance the Costas one.
The problem, as I’ve mentioned several times, is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or threatening the president, or violation of copyright, slander and libel laws is not and I emphatically repeat NOT analogous to restricting gun ownership and gun carry.
To make it analogous would require restricting a person’s right to bring their voice into the theater BEFORE they ever shouted “Fire!” It would require restricting someone from owning or using a printing press BEFORE they committed libel or slander. It would require restricting a person from owning or carrying a pen, computer, or vocal chords BEFORE they threatened the president.
Savvy, folks?[/quote]
Some good points.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
BTW, some of the liberals are finally waking up and seeing the reality of what this gun control push is:
I couldn’t have been more overjoyed to read this article from a hard-left outlet. We are all Americans, and we all have to stand together in defiance of the one thing that could possibly allow tyranny to gain a solid foothold in this country. There are some VERY solid arguments in that article. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
Yes, it was a good read.
However, in it we do find the same tried and failed attempted analogy between free speech and gun rights used by all the “reasonable” people who want a “national conversation” about “reasonable” gun control (you know…so that hunters and sportsmen can maintain their rifles and shotguns so very integral to the 2nd Amendment which was written to protect the shooting sports): All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowd. You can’t threaten to kill the president. You can’t publish someone else’s words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights."
I’ve even heard these very words by some who’ve happened to post on this thread as well as other gun control threads, for instance the Costas one.
The problem, as I’ve mentioned several times, is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or threatening the president, or violation of copyright, slander and libel laws is not and I emphatically repeat NOT analogous to restricting gun ownership and gun carry.
To make it analogous would require restricting a person’s right to bring their voice into the theater BEFORE they ever shouted “Fire!” It would require restricting someone from owning or using a printing press BEFORE they committed libel or slander. It would require restricting a person from owning or carrying a pen, computer, or vocal chords BEFORE they threatened the president.
Savvy, folks?[/quote]
An astute observation. However, there is something to bear in mind regarding the use and criticism of analogy in general:
Take a simple analogical pairing–car is to road as boat is to sea. Cars travel on roads, boats travel on seawater. Seems legitimate and, indeed, obvious enough that a child could probably understand it at a reasonably young age.
On further inspection, however, our analogy collapses: a car sits atop the pavement on which it travels, but boats are actually partially submerged in the water, stuck in the balance between the forces of gravity and buoyancy.
A critic could well object: “This analogy would only be valid if cars were submerged in pavement like boats are in fluid, or if boats glided atop the seas as cars glide atop the highway.”
The point is that analogies–all of them–collapse as their details are inspected more closely. They are pairings of like but nonidentical things and are therefore by definition invalid comparisons on some or another level (that level being whatever characteristic makes them nonidentical).
Anyways, this isn’t intended to nullify your objection to the free speech analogy. Only to point out that flaws in an analogy are not only unsurprising, but inevitable.
Your analogy of choice would equate weapons ownership with the ability to speak. Consequently, the criminalization of certain kinds of speech would have as its analog the criminalization of certain uses, but not kinds, of weapons.
On the other hand, we could construct an analogy whereby different kinds of speech are made to correspond with different kinds of guns. The criminalization of some kinds of speech, then, would have as its analog the criminalization of certain kinds of guns.
Two analogies, both by definition invalid on one or another level, and each leading to an opposite conclusion.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Their crimes are evident.
Their intent has been stated.
Our Liberties and Rights are hanging by a thread.
We have a peaceful nature, noted by our Founders, that allowed them to trust us as armed-to-the-teeth militiamen, above any and all governments in the world. And now they are taking advantage of that same peaceful nature to disarm and demoralize us and spitting in our faces while they do it…
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be? When does the Sleeping Giant awake again to discover intruders in his house?[/quote]
OK, JP, I think I am coming to understand and respect your opinion on the establishment, the unorganized militia.
Allow me to ask an extended hypothetical.
Let’s say you have decided to “organize” an unorganized militia, and you enroll 50 to 200 able-bodies males, your neighbors in, say, Huntsville. You train together, they adore and respect you and you are elected their Colonel. Because you are not part of the Alabama State Defense Militia, or the National Guard, you do not answer to the Governor of Alabama. You are following the laws of Titles 10 and 32.
Next: the wily President–oh, lets just call him BHO–decides that this poses a threat to security. At an opportune moment, he declares some national emergency, and issues an executive order to his Attorney General to federalize your militia, under the same Titles 10 and 32 (yes, it is in there.)
Now, what do you, Colonel JP, do, if you disagree with the President’s policies?
- Do you follow the legal executive order and take your orders from the President’s line of command, respecting Titles 10 and 32?
- Do you refuse, declaring the order invalid?
a.—and take BHO to court?
b.—answer to some undefined “higher law,” and enter into open rebellion against the Federal Govt, and its laws, the same laws which have recognized you to organize and arm?
c.—resign, disperse, re-organize…what?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be?
[/quote]
I am with you completely.
I see that the gun is a symbol of power, equality ( specially for me as a woman, is the only way to defend against rape. The police cannot be there to defend me should it happen ), and self-reliance.
It is a symbol of competence.
People who are reliant on the state to protect them, usually opt to be dependent over being competent.
As we have seen here, it matters not the way it was intended to be.
The discussion is on their terms; what is right in their eyes regardless of the principles upon America was founded.
These people are not under the thumb of the government, they want to be regulated by the government.
The notion of being well regulated within themselves is anathema to them.
They not only want to be told, they need to be told ( “Where do I report?” ).
Is America truly sleeping or is America brainwashed into unconditional subordination to the sovereignty of the state?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be?
[/quote]
I am with you completely.
I see that the gun is a symbol of power, equality ( specially for me as a woman, is the only way to defend against rape. The police cannot be there to defend me should it happen ), and self-reliance.
It is a symbol of competence.
People who are reliant on the state to protect them, usually opt to be dependent over being competent.
As we have seen here, it matters not the way it was intended to be.
The discussion is on their terms; what is right in their eyes regardless of the principles upon America was founded.
These people are not under the thumb of the government, they want to be regulated by the government.
The notion of being well regulated within themselves is anathema to them.
They not only want to be told, they need to be told ( “Where do I report?” ).
Is America truly sleeping or is America brainwashed into unconditional subordination to the sovereignty of the state?
[/quote]
Great post, I would like to address your last sentence…
For some reason, some people are absolutely star-struck with politicians, as if they can do no wrong or ever lie. They take every statement as an undeniable promise, refusing to consider the possibility of an alternative agenda. You see this on both sides, but for some reason, the media and the Left have truly grabbed onto Obama as “the Great and Powerful OZ.”
What people don’t realize, that 99% of the time, these politicians are fucking scum-bums who are beholden to their highest campaign contributor. These are not nice people, they are almost always self-righteous in their thinking, and they know that the public will fall for the bullshit.
During the healthcare debate, Obama promised that it would not be acceptable to illegal aliens, and he was called a liar. HE WAS LYING, the media used this as the perfect jumpoff to “hating the first Black president.” I mean, who would have the brass balls to question the first Black president right ?
The public does not realize that laws are not written by politicians, but by LOBBYISTS.
Politicians = if they are breathing they are lying.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For you, my dear amigo:[/quote]
You’re confused. I am not dancing, I am refusing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You don’t know your history. Not even your straight history (TB can help you with that, I think cough).[/quote]
Yes, sure can. Drunkpig - don’t read Unintended Consquences. That’s a good solid first step.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Your analogy of choice would equate weapons ownership with the ability to speak. Consequently, the criminalization of certain kinds of speech would have as its analog the criminalization of certain uses, but not kinds, of weapons.
On the other hand, we could construct an analogy whereby different kinds of speech are made to correspond with different kinds of guns. The criminalization of some kinds of speech, then, would have as its analog the criminalization of certain kinds of guns…
[/quote]
No.
All guns are merely indiscriminate tools that use a propellant to launch a projectile. They are neither benign nor malicious.
[/quote]
All words are merely indiscriminate tools that use a sound to convey a thought. They are neither benign nor malicious.
Another way to frame it:
The First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.
It does not seek to protect the ability of the citizen to say or write what he pleases, because that ability is not and cannot ever be under threat. Even in China, today, I could walk into Tienanmen Square and shout “June 4, 1989” at the top of my lungs. The difference being that, because the Chinese have no real analog to the Bill of Rights, I would be summarily clubbed and sent to disappear into that county’s bog of political reprisal and confinement.
So: the First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.
Brandenburg v. Ohio makes an exception to this protection–that is, it allows the government to punish a citizen as a consequence of that citizen’s speech, which you’ll note is exactly what the text of the First Amendment prohibits–in the name of public safety.
In other words, the First Amendment prohibits something, and Brandenburg allows certain manifestations of exactly the thing prohibited by the First Amendment.
By analogy, the text of the Second Amendment expressly prohibits something–infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If Brandenburg is legitimate, so would be a gun control measure which allowed for certain manifestations of the act prohibited under the Second Amendment–that is, infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms–in the name of public safety.
This is exactly why violent criminals and the mentally unfit can be prohibited from gun ownership. This is exactly why private ownership of MANPADS and fissile material can be criminalized. I’m not saying it’s wise or effective to further restrict gun ownership, but I am saying that Brandenburg stands as evidence that it may not be impermissible.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Their crimes are evident.
Their intent has been stated.
Our Liberties and Rights are hanging by a thread.
We have a peaceful nature, noted by our Founders, that allowed them to trust us as armed-to-the-teeth militiamen, above any and all governments in the world. And now they are taking advantage of that same peaceful nature to disarm and demoralize us and spitting in our faces while they do it…
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be? When does the Sleeping Giant awake again to discover intruders in his house?[/quote]
OK, JP, I think I am coming to understand and respect your opinion on the establishment, the unorganized militia.
Allow me to ask an extended hypothetical.
Let’s say you have decided to “organize” an unorganized militia, and you enroll 50 to 200 able-bodies males, your neighbors in, say, Huntsville. You train together, they adore and respect you and you are elected their Colonel. Because you are not part of the Alabama State Defense Militia, or the National Guard, you do not answer to the Governor of Alabama. You are following the laws of Titles 10 and 32.
Next: the wily President–oh, lets just call him BHO–decides that this poses a threat to security. At an opportune moment, he declares some national emergency, and issues an executive order to his Attorney General to federalize your militia, under the same Titles 10 and 32 (yes, it is in there.)
Now, what do you, Colonel JP, do, if you disagree with the President’s policies?
- Do you follow the legal executive order and take your orders from the President’s line of command, respecting Titles 10 and 32?
- Do you refuse, declaring the order invalid?
a.—and take BHO to court?
b.—answer to some undefined “higher law,” and enter into open rebellion against the Federal Govt, and its laws, the same laws which have recognized you to organize and arm?
c.—resign, disperse, re-organize…what?
[/quote]
Excellent hypothetical, far-fetched as it may be.
At that point, we are federalized, and we report accordingly. But our Oath to uphold the Constitution comes before the duty to obey orders. So long as we are given lawful orders (in accordance with the Constitution and USC) we are duty-bound to carry them out. If we are given an unlawful order, we are duty-bound to not only refuse the order, but relieve the commanding officer who gave the order and take him into custody.
This is the same for all military personnel, and it’s the difficult question that all of our Service-men and -women are going to have to answer soon. I have faith in them, and I know that many, if not most, will stand with the people and our Constitution.
In all actuality, that would be my preferred method of combating unconstitutional action on the part of the administration. Peaceful removal of those cancerous cells who wish to march us into slavery.
I would be honored to be a part of that solution.
A hunter’s take on gun control and the NRA.