“I don’t ‘need’ my AR any more than Rosa Parks ‘needed’ to sit in the front of that bus.” – anonymous

Recommended For You

49 Responses to Quote of the Day: “Assault Weapons” Ownership is A Civil Right Edition

  1. It is a civil right to serve as a citizen-soldier in a Swiss-style militia, and to live in a country without a Standing Army.

    But now that the Standing Army has unconstitutionally expropriated the task of national defense that assault rifles were designed for, why does a civilian (non-combatant) think he needs one? This is actually a valid question the gun-grabbers are asking.

    Since politicians ignored the Constitution, we’re down to that “last resort” Jefferson mentioned. It’s a pitiful last resort, because it probably won’t work any better than it did with men-better-than-you at Wounded Knee.

    This is the White Man’s Ghost Dance.

    It’s an unintended consequence of their supporting the troops bootlicking the standing army.

    P.S. The Standing Army has “…Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America (GOA)…” in its sights:
    Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right
    Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
    UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
    Jan 15, 2013
    http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

    P.P.S. What part of NO don’t you understand? I don’t see “renewed” there, do you?
    “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

    • Aaron,
      That’s the way they spin it. We’re missing a great opportunity to establish the 2A as a way to guarantee civil right. The communist take that which they fear and twist it around to discredit or destroy what the fear. They show us our strongest arguments by identifying them before we do and then establishing the narrative in a negative way. I believe civil rights is one of these issues! My guns guarantee that Rosa’s descendants can sit wherever they want to. Make the narrative not white against black but guns against fascist government.

      • “My guns guarantee that Rosa’s descendants can sit wherever they want to.”

        Are you going to shoot O.E?

        O.E says (below): “Segregation is as much a property issue…I have the right to refuse services to X,Y or Z, I have the right to discriminate…”

        • Rosa’s descendants & relations from Jamaica have already answered that question on more than one occasion by using very primitive tools to inflict what is to be clearly understood as lethal intended harm upon myself.

          Even as an adolescent myself dwelling outside of the U.S territories the argumentative weapon carrying “civilize them Whites with brutality” Black actors have taken advantage of this bias-less Liberal condition on display here. The same that has been promulgated ever since the 60’s with its blameless Nubian sophistry and the duplicitous con artistry that seeks vilification of White men and women and to even greater extent children.

          This sophist moronic tradition today threatens innocent white folk for taking measures despite evidence which provides an insistence that Whites pursue the contrarian path into a quagmire of politically incorrect rhetoric and activism rather than stand up for the so called right of others who so routinely abuse those rights and tools that derive from them.

        • Nubian sophistry

          Do you often use that term at your meetings, O.E?

          “Sounds like Homer Stokes is the kind of fella who wants to cast the first stone.” ~Pappy O’Daniel (2000) O Brother, Where Art Thou?

  2. Spot on! Segregation was a form of people control just as the attack on our 2A rights is. Elections are bought and sold. Once guns are solely possessed by the fascist what’s to stop them from bringing back segregation. We need to broaden our outreach to break the stereotypical view of 2A supporters as old white men.

  3. Segregation is as much a property issue as the 2nd Amendment infringement is a property issue.

    I own a business, I have the right to refuse X,Y or Z entrance to my property, I have the right to refuse services to X,Y or Z, I have the right to discriminate till my heart is content on matters concerning A through to W at whim. I am not the Federal Government, I have consciously self discriminated and self determined to not be membership to the Federal Government. Yet Federal Government attempts to regulate my choices and my property by over ruling my private authority.

    Liberals like Charlton Heston former chair of the NRA adore the energy and attention they get for running around with Communists swindling the poor out of everything they have.

  4. What some of you are saying will not play. The anti-gun crowd will make it a public safety issue. Your fighting the wrong fight. When mothers see things like what happened in Sandy Hook many who nothing about guns or self protection especially those stay at home upper income moms who have nothing better to do but beat the doors of politicians to ask for guns to be banned.

    Are biggest problem is that we need to be more organized. We need to get crime victims who fought back and survived. We need those faces on TV in PSA announcements saying “I could have been a victim, I could have been a victim” ” but I fought back, I fought back” “I am am live today because I was able to defend myself and now the govt is trying to take that away from me”

    Emotions, that is what will win the day.

    This other stuff may be correct, but it does not play well except to gun owners

    Stuff that Ivy Mike keeps insistently posting just makes us all look like kooks.

    The anti-gun crowd and those who support know nothing about guns except what they hear about on TV and news, they are not well educated on the constitution and most of them know more about some reality show than real life.

    You need to fight with what the other side understands not what we already believe.

    • Public Safety is one thing, walking naked into a burning theater smothered head to foot in vaseline is another. The public domain is a wild environment where anything can and does happen, it is up to members of the public to secure themselves as best they can with what ever means is available. Until Government begins the process of regulating the carriage of steel plates while in the public domain the public are capable of providing their own security from gunshot wounds to the torso and depending upon how vital one views their limbs the rest of the body may also be armored. This is of course largely regarded as a White Mans burden and it is expected to be endured oversea’s in theaters of war (read GWOT) rather than domestically. This is pure speculation on my part, but I believe this to be a means of controlling the likelihood of group think and regulating the potential escailation and frequency of hardening former soft ‘targets’ to a new level.

    • Well, most of us have stopped responding about Ivy Mike.

      I agree with your assessment, but this fight can and should be fought at all levels. The benefits of gun ownership are factual, historical, and emotional. The biggest problem that I can see is that the left controls the media and that too much of the population are morons totally willing to be “assisted” by the government. Remeber how much damage control Romney had to do after his comments that 47% of people were on government assistance?

      Here is what is propose an “I survived because I was armed” narrative. That would be especially powerful with single moms and minorities. Or perhaps “I survived because I was armed, and now that is being taken from me.” That would be an excellent message to put forth to sway the “emotional” crowd. Pictures, photos, and stories of vulnerable – looking folks who survived violent encounters because they exercised their 2nd Amendement rights.

      • You have zero rebuttal to my presenting the US Constitution and the complete 2A.

        So you may as well be quiet.

        Maybe the next step is that you can actually learn something.

        Baby steps. 😉

    • Stuff that Ivy Mike keeps insistently posting

      Stuff like:
      • Complete Second Amendment
      • Constitution
      • Quotes from Founding Fathers

      Yeah, that stuff is real problematic to Right Wing Authoritarian-Submissive bootlickers like you, just as it is problematic to Leftwing Collectivists. But hey, at least you’ve got lots of company.

  5. I’m just throwing this out there, but maybe “gun control” and “racial segregation” are different from each other than not equally abhorrent.

  6. Right on, anonymous. It’s not a Bill of Needs, it’s a Bill of Rights. Nice Photoshop by the way, that’s classic. I’m sure the Deacons for Defense and Justice would approve. Someone should try to get a copy of that photo to Chuck Hicks, Robert Hicks’ son.

  7. I have a new response to “need” comments. Someone once filled a truck with explosives and blew up a building. Since no one needs a truck, is it okay to ban trucks because someone used one to kill several hundred people?

    • Along the same lines, I found this:

      “If you don’t have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs…

      then why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?”

      It’s about common sense, which the control nuts do not understand.

      I’ve said it before, this is not about “guns”, it is about “CONTROL”

  8. My views on “need”.

    I don’t need a gun.
    I have never needed a gun.
    I hope I never need a gun.
    And, in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
    However, should I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
    Therefore, I have a gun.
    And if the Government ever says you can’t have a gun, that’s when you’ll need a gun.

    Aside from that, guns are cool. Guns are fun. Have fun and be safe.

    • Rifles can be COMMUNISTS? Is mine a CAPITALIST?

      Seriously. Calling a rifle “communist” is as loony as asserting “guns kill people”! Really.

      And I think Rosa would have gotten some SERIOUS respect (which was due) if she’d carried a Boris.

      • communist…capitalist

        What’s the difference?

        “If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory.” ~Lenin, 1918

      • Good grief. The rifle was designed by and for the communist movement. We don’t have any enemies that use M-16’s. It is a potent symbol of how communists gained and maintained power through much of the world.

        • My point is that if someone wanted to associate Rosa Parks efforts for freedom and civil rights with civil rights for gun ownership, a better choice of weapon would have been an American rifle, not one saddled by association with communism and terrorism.

  9. In times of tyranny and rebellion an AR/AK is far more important than a specific seat on a bus. Riding around on a bus, during times of non-physical rebellion, the right for everyone to sit on a bus where they want is a valid and a socially important right.

  10. Rosa Parks would have accomplished nothing had she boarded the bus with a gun. Her arrest would have been seen as justified by most, rather than sparking the outrage that it did.

    • True, 1 person with a gun can be spun any way the powers that be wish it. But every person with a gun? Coil up the fire hoses and put the dogs in the kennels, it’s a whole other ball game.

      remember WC, I have seen “Whites Only” signs on drinking fountains and restrooms and other places. I’m an OFWG that spent part of his youth in the south. It’s hard to mete out injustice against an armed population.

  11. I feel we can make some good points by pointing out that the 2A is a civil right. I also believe we open up the discussion in an unproductive way if we try to use put up examples like this Rosa Parks pic. The other side is too good at taking us into territory difficult to defend, keep it simple and to the point leave the demagoguery to the other side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *