Random Thoughts About Armed Insurrection

 Halo, how are you? (courtesy halo.wikia.com)

The Second Amendment bars local, state and federal governments from passing any law that seeks to control the keeping or bearing of guns. It bars Rhode Island’s “blue card” provision, which forces citizens to take a written test and pay a fee to purchase a handgun. It bars Texas’ Concealed Handgun License which mandates an approved course, a test and a fee for residents who want to carry a gun. It bars New York’s SAFE Act, which makes it a crime for citizens to load their handgun with more than seven rounds (unless they’re shooting at an approved shooting range). It bars New Jersey’s gun registration laws, which require all citizens to register all guns with the state government. Does supporting the Second Amendment, which bars gun control, make me an insurrectionist? Well one thing is for sure . . .

If I was, I’d be an armed insurrectionist. Just like the idea of a felon being able to legally purchase a gun, the idea of a citizen having a gun to overthrow the government makes a lot of people very, very nervous. Including, of course, the government. As well it should.

In my first gun control debate with Juan Pacheco I steered the “discussion” into three basic areas: the natural and civil right of self-defense, the deterrent effect of firearms on criminals, and private gun ownership as a check on government tyranny. For the first two topics, Juan trotted-out the peace, love, there’s got to be a better way argument. Which isn’t really an argument so much as an emotional appeal. Thanks to Juan’s passion and street cred, his words hit home.

When it came to government tyranny, Juan was lost. The “Former Gang Banger and Youth Violence Prevention Specialist” is from El Salvador, where rival drug gangs and a brutal government impose terror and tyranny on the people through force of arms. Juan couldn’t tell the audience that “Americans don’t need guns to defend themselves against government tyranny, and even if they had them they wouldn’t be able to do anything against government controlled military might.” Because he knew it wasn’t true.

Which put him in a bit of a rhetorical blind, especially as Juan’s not blind to the current trend of government over-reach, including police militarization. “We need to do the little things now to stop the tyranny from happening,” he asserted. I agreed with him on that point, but also pointed out that by the time most citizens would realize there’s a government tyranny that needs fighting it’s too late to tool-up. Their right to keep and bear arms is, effectively, gone.

A friend of a friend works at a university in Rhode Island. She’s got a stalker: a former student who failed to graduate. The stalker’s showed up at graduation every year for the last ten years. This year the stalker student confronted the teacher and threatened her. “You’ll be sorry,” she promised. She left phone messages describing guns. The teacher went to the police. The paperwork has been filed. Now the teacher wants a gun.

To acquire a handgun in the Ocean State, the teacher must first obtain an official firearms educational booklet, study it and take a test. If she passes, three working days later or so, the State will send her a card that gives her the legal right to buy a handgun. After paying for the gun, she has to wait seven days before she can take possession. She can keep it at home and work—well she could if the university didn’t ban guns on campus—but she can’t carry the gun without a concealed handgun license.

If she applies for a carry permit from the Providence police, she must complete approved instruction, pass a shooting test, submit her fingerprints, pass a criminal background check, provide three notarized personal references (who have to be personally interviewed), write-up an explanation of her need and pay $250. It took me five months to get my license from a city that is “shall issue” (the City must prove why I shouldn’t have a license).

If the stalked teacher applies to the Rhode Island Attorney General for a concealed weapons permit, she must go through all of the above. It’s a faster process (approximately one month) and costs less ($40). But the State-issued carry permit/concealed handgun license process is “may issue.” The odds of denial are higher at the state level—depending on the Attorney General’s political perspective.

It would take the teacher a minimum of 43 days to exercise her natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (both State and federal) right to keep and bear arms. It could take as many as 120 days. Or more. Not to mention the time and money spent pursuing the goal. Or the fact that she may not succeed. (If she lived in New Jersey it simply wouldn’t happen.) By that time, she may well be dead.

What’s true on the local level is also true on the national level. By the time it dawned on El Salvador’s population that they needed a gun to protect themselves against murderous drug thugs and government troops, it was too late. They couldn’t get one. Oh sure, they can get a gun on the black market, just like the teacher above. Good luck with that. And the aftermath should they use it.

Like every other gun guy who believes the Second Amendment prohibits ANY gun control laws, I’ve got nothing against laws that punish gun owners for criminal acts. If a person uses a firearm to intimidate or murder someone they should face appropriate penalties. If they poach on posted private land they should face the legal consequences. I’m OK with laws against discharging a firearm in built-up areas.

Actions have consequences. Nothing wrong with that. All the pre-crime laws? The purchasing prohibitions and shooting tests and licensing fees and city, state and federal permissions and paperwork? It all has to go. These laws are all ineffective and unconstitutional. They are a cancer on our freedom. Our right to keep and bear arms.

What are the odds of rolling back government regulations on gun purchase and ownership? Not as bad as you might think. Several states have reverted to Constitutional carry (no permit required) in the last decade. The federal assault weapons ban expired. Illinois, the last holdout against legal concealed carry (in theory), is creating a system to “allow” residents to bear arms.

A return to Constitutional principles is possible. Here’s another interesting sign from Tyler Cowan’s article More Freedom on the Airplane, if Nowhere Else:

We don’t really know the total regulatory burden in our economy today, in part because there are too many rules and side effects to add up all the costs. Nonetheless, we are continually increasing the obstacles to doing business. America has lost the robust productivity growth of much of the postwar era, and the share of start-ups in the economy has been falling each decade since the 1980s. Although overregulation is hardly the only culprit, it is very likely contributing to the problem.

The point isn’t that we should eliminate all regulation or give up on clean air and water. In fact, we may need tougher guidelines — albeit simpler ones — to govern what is permissible for activities like financial risk-taking or burning coal. Still, a paring back of regulation in many areas, based on clearer priorities, seems in order.

This from The New York Times. While the pro-gun control newspaper would never make the connection between a regulation roll-back and the removal of gun control laws, I do. Anything that shrinks to size and power of government in our lives is a good thing for The People of the Gun.

Meanwhile, I declare that I am not an armed insurrectionist. I do not want to violently overthrow the United States government. But I believe that our right to keep and bear arms keeps Americans from having to do so and gives us the means should it become necessary. Which it isn’t. Yet. And hopefully never will be.

comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    Nice. – you deserve a FNS-40

    1. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      The Federal Government is conducting armed insurrection against the sovereign People.

      1. avatar MarkinVA says:

        I love this piece from July which can help you define your own tipping point. In the case of Egypt, the Standing Army did as it should (as I believe our Unified Command would do).

        http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/putting-egypt-in-context-what-if-president-obama-did-what-morsi-did/

        1. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Mark,

          These silly “thought experiments” pop up on TheBlaze and RedState all the time. (“What if Obama decided to give himself the powers of an absolute dictator?”) These are designed to appeal to people’s fears, ignorance, and racism. But I can tell you what would happen: Nothing. No U.S. President will ever be able to challenge the power of the Supreme Court.

          Even right now, with a Tea Party fundraiser sitting on the Supreme Court, openly asking for bribes, the President is powerless to do anything about it. He couldn’t give Clarence Thomas a parking ticket.

          Egypt and the U.S. are different in many respects, and this is just one of them: Even the most loyal Democrats would not support a Morsi-type power grab in the U.S. We barely even support the health care plan, and we are openly opposed to the domestic spying. The drone strike program appears to be unconstitutional, in some ways, but it seems to enjoy more support from the military than from “Democrats”.

          when you pose rhetorical questions about impossible events, you get fake answers. What if space aliens invaded the U.S.? Would you need guns then? Well, of course you would. But that won’t happen either.

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          Do you really think that having that much power in the hands of nine political appointees is a good idea? It was not designed to be that way.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          Paul,
          I share your frustration that Supreme Court justices cannot be removed unless they rob a bank. I agree that they tend to rewrite laws, both liberal and conservative, based on their own composition and political leanings. For better or worse, it actually was designed that way.

          We can’t worship the Constitution when we agree with it, and then despise the portions that we feel are being misused.

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          It isn’t a “feeling”. The powers delegated to the scotus are listed, judicial review is NOT one of them. That is absolutely clear. That means the scotus is breaking the law. Period. Nothing to debate. It was NOT designed that way.

          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G.: That’s a very good link! I’ve been checking in on the comments for this article as I went about my day and planned on dropping that very link into the conversation when I arrived back at my desk this evening.

          I hope many people viewing these comments read that particular page and then all of what has been written on that site. It’s some very good information, IMHO. Judicial Review was one of the sneakiest and most devastating acts of government usurpation ever to be perpetrated against the People.

        6. avatar theshambler says:

          Ok Paul, I’ll bite. I’ll leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Statements_by_the_framers_of_the_Constitution_regarding_judicial_review

          But for the sake of argument you’re not one to consider legislative intent. We’ll assume that if the framers wanted Judicial Review to be vested in the Supreme Court they’d have said so somewhere other than all the documentation surrounding the creation of those articles. After all, given your study of this topic you know just as well as that it is for the Congress to determine the ambit of the Courts. They should have passed an act, or an amendment or something if it was so damn important to have Judicial Review.

          Maybe that’s why the very first congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789.

          This act EXPLICITLY grants the power of Judicial Review to the Supreme Court.

        7. avatar Paul G. says:

          No assuming about it. Obviously the founders understood the concept of judicial review, and consciously did not grant such power to the supreme court.
          Remember this….”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”?
          Jefferson also opined strenuously on the courts usurpation of this power in Marbury. Oddlu, they did not act to use this power again for about half a century, and again, the executive branch, under Lincoln, decried the over-reach on the part of the courts. Rightly so.

        8. avatar Paul G. says:

          Again, no the Judiciary Act of 1789 most certainly did not implicitly or explicitly grant the powers of judicial review to scotus. With all of the debate on judicial review, and so many actually in favor of it, with few dissenting, either it was an oversight (unlikely) or sound reasoning that the founders purposely omitted such a power from the scotus. Either way, it is not a power granted them. One could also make the case that Congress has no power to “grant” such a power through acts anyways, that to give such a power to the court would require a constitutional amendment. Yep.

        9. avatar theshambler says:

          U.S.C.A. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 2 Gives congress power to regulate the courts. This includes things like establishing jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Laws of the United States. For those who are interested, the full text of Section 25 of the act where such jurisdiction is explicitly given.

          SEC . 25. And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favour of such their validity, or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court, and the proceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision as before provided, may at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution. But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.

          If you’re concerned with the potential for courtroom kings, a better argument would be to agitate for congress to pass legislation establishing term limits on Federal Judges. Lifetime appointment is not a right explicitly protected by the constitution. That or get them to repeal the Judiciary Act.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          A couple thoughts on that. Regulate is not the same as create new powers. Nothing more need be said.
          Keep looking though, and remember laws cannot trump the constitution. Your search is futile, but it keeps you busy, that is something.

          Did you not get that the Judiciary Act did not and CANNOT give scotus powers not delegated it in the constitution? That would take an amendment to the constitution. This really isn’t brain surgery.

          I can tell you that you are now potus, but it doesn’t mean squat. Same for congress thinking it can “grant” powers to the courts in excess of what the constitution does.

  2. avatar Damien says:

    The most eloquent thing I have read on here by far. Well said.

  3. avatar shawn says:

    No felon allowed to own a gun. You lost that right.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      If a felon cannot be trusted to have their rights fully restored upon release, then should they really be out of prison at all?

      What about nonviolent felonies? Mail fraud – no more voting, no guns, nothing?

        1. avatar Gregolas says:

          Paul G. There never WAS 2d Amendment absolutism. Stephen Halbrook has pointed out that even in colonial and new U.S. days, felons and the insane were not allowed to have arms.
          I don’t know what experience with felons Ralph has had in his law practice, but I have 24 years dealing with them as a city prosecutor and judge, defense lawyer and appellate clerk. please respect our experience when we say felons (violent ones at least) should NEVER be allowed to own a firearm. It’s not unconstitutional to say so, either. Like the right to remain silent, ANY Constitutional right can be voluntarily waived. Violent felons have exercised their Constitutional right to be stupid, cruel, and unusual; therefore, they have waived their right to be armed forever.

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          False. You allude to the idea that from day one the constitution had been violated. That doesn’t sanctify the violation. When you bend the rules a little, you end up getting them bent where you don’t like them bent. It ends up in the mess we are in now. The constitution was meant to be taken literally.
          I respect your opinion even less because of your position. You should know better.

        3. avatar rip_vw32 says:

          Sorry Paul G, even if he alluded to the Constitution being violated at inception, the argument he makes is sound… Commit a felony by choice, and the felon is CHOOSING to give up his rights to legally owning a gun… Should the ‘voluntary’ giving up of rights expire when the time since the crime has been committed has passed the statue of limitations? I think yes. So if you commit a crime with no statue of limitations (such as murder in the first), the felon will lose the rights permanently. Easily separates out violent from non-violent offenders… Same goes for those jokers who received a DD from the military.

          It is the person committing the crime who is waiving his rights though… People should be held accountable for their choices, both good and bad…

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          Then apparently you do not believe in the constitution nor the rule of law. That would make you a traitor and you need to be executed, right? If the constitution is not taken literally, then it is not a worthy document. Those who would compromise it do it injustice, and America as well.

          The person did not “choose” to waive their rights, they committed an act, one they may have thought quite legal, and were found to have violated the law. They pay their price, they get their life and rights back. Simple.

        5. avatar Hal says:

          I wholeheartedly agree. The capacity for trust should be a barometer of whether or not a person is released from prison.

          Can’t be trusted to vote and bear arms? Into the cage motherf*cker. You’re never getting out.

          All others? Full restoration of civil rights. The way we treat felons breeds recidivism. It must be stopped at all costs. I can think of no better way to start than by the decriminalization of narcotics.

        6. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Hal, I agree that America puts way too many people in jail for drug charges and other nonviolent crimes, but I disagree that we should restore full rights to people who have proven to have have bad judgement.

          If someone is convicted of stealing credit cards, part of the punishment is that they lose their rights to concealed carry.

          If we are so determined to uphold the second amendment at all costs, then we put ourselves in the odd situation of extending rights to criminals based on the best case scenario, rather than the worst. Once someone has proven themselves to be a criminal, they have to earn their rights back, usually under supervision.

          If someone is convicted of car theft, society has decided to revoke their second amendment rights. It is not because we thought the gun was stealing the cars, it is because of burden of proof.

          If we meet someone who is carrying a gun, who has never committed a crime in his life, he is assumed to be going about his lawful business, right up until the time where he shoots someone. If we meet someone with two convictions for various forms of theft, we do not owe him the benefit of a doubt. It would be unfair to his next victim to assume that the handgun is only for legal defense.

        7. avatar Paul G. says:

          Since when do you need a permit to carry concealed? Constitutionally speaking, of course. Either you believe in the constitution or you don’t. There are no two ways about it.

        8. avatar Dave says:

          In the majority decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote;
          “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues … The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

          In answer to the next question: Just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, that actually does make it constitutional. That is sort of the definition.

        9. avatar Paul G. says:

          No it is not. The supreme court has no authority to do so. Also when they do, they often are blatantly wrong. Such as in the case of DUI checkpoints, where they admitted that such stops were unconstitutional, but allowed them since DUI was a problem….the end justified the means they said. Rights are not subject to such justifications. This basically strips you of your 4th amendment rights, unless you can take the case to scotus and get them to determine you have standing to have your case heard. For the vast majority, the 4th amendment has become bull and void, a privilege for the law to mete out as it desires.

        10. avatar rip_vw32 says:

          I think you may have missed my point.. Or maybe didn’t read between the line… Or maybe, you are not as familiar with the current justice system as I had thought…

          Amendment 14, 17th annotation:

          Rights of Prisoners .– ”has, as a consequence of his crime, not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords to him. He is for the time being the slave of the state. –

          But since there are so many laws since passed that basically require the ‘felon’ to be released, are we then to understand that a particular felon is no longer a threat to society? I think not.

          I personally know several felons, some of which are family, who should not be out on the street without an escort, let alone owning/possessing a gun. If we are to have ‘felons’ thrust upon us because some law says to do otherwise would violate their civil rights, shouldn’t we treat those most vile of felons as if they were still incarcerated?

          You call out laws that are passed by SCOTUS, state and local judiciaries as being unconstitutional (not that I disagree based on your presentation of the material), therefor the laws that allow any felon to walk the street should be struck down as well – thus relieving us of the problem of felons arming themselves… right?

        11. avatar Paul G. says:

          “He is for the time being the slave of the state.”….and if and when released he is a free man. You admit it yourself, you just don’t like the implications. Your feelings are not nearly as important as following the law. No knock warrantless searches based on mere hunches would make police work so much easier, but it is not lawful. I bet you would feel great at all the bad guys they could get off the street, until they decide to head to your house.

      1. avatar Rustholio says:

        Yes, they should be released from prison, IF, they agree to forfeit the RTKBA.

        In my mind, that is the bargain with felons being released. Felons lose a lot of rights in prison. 4th Amend.? Nope. Get out of your cell, we’re tossing it. A felon losing their RTKBA is part of the punishment that goes outside of the prison, like the obligation to pay restitution. It is foolish to not see grey areas of trust. I trust a felon to move in society after they served their time, but I don’t trust them to do so while armed.

        I would also add that when I say felon I mean a violent felon.

        Don’t want to forfeit your right to RTKBA? Then you don’t get out of prison.

        Also we probably don’t have the money or space to house every violent felon for life.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          So now you have decided the constitution doesn’t suit you, so you change it at will? Pseudo-conservatism at its finest.

        2. If they’re that dangerous, then a short drop and a sudden stop is a more appropriate punishment.

        3. avatar Chip says:

          I like you Rustholio, you’re funny.

        4. avatar Punknil says:

          The argument only works if you believe that a violent felon will obey the law. You are advocating for law that restricts the rights of the reformed while doing jack-all to prevent the carrer criminal from getting guns. The rejects that attempt to solve their problems with murder, assault, and armed threats even after a prison stint really won’t hesitate to pick up a gun illegally on the way to the local stop-and-rob. The man convicted at 18 and out before 30 who just wants to keep his family and new life safe shouldn’t continue to be treated like a second class citizen.

        5. avatar SAS 2008 says:

          So you don’t trust them enough to have a gun because they might do something illegal with it. However you trust them enough to not obtain a gun illegally? That makes no sense to me at all.

        6. avatar Pat says:

          SAS, bingo. If they are to continue their criminal ways, why would they even want to obtain a gun legally, with all its regulations, hassles, records keeping, and expense?

        7. avatar Ralph says:

          Hey, I have an idea. When every violent felon gets out of jail, he gets a new suit and a new pistol AND a new place to live next to every moron who thinks that violent felons should have their gun rights restored.

        8. avatar Paul G. says:

          Only a moron would say something so juvenile. Too bad you are unable to read and comprehend such a simple document as the Constitution. We should have understood that even trying to explain the depth and subtle but brilliant nuances of such a document would be far beyond your abilities.
          If you do not think felons have rehabilitated, don’t let them out of prison. If you let them out, restore all of their rights. No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. Some famous dude said that. He was right.

        9. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Paul,

          A few other countries attempt to rehabilitate inmates. The U.S. hardly bothers to even pretend. Instead, the U.S. has done everything possible to increase sentences. The U.S. system seems to be to house people for a while, squeeze them together like sardines, and hope they change their mind. It works even worse than most people might expect.

          That is how we have ended up with insane outcomes like people who go to prison for life without parole for stealing a jacket, or smoking pot, or other such essentially nonviolent crimes.

          Most people don’t choose a life of crime. Most are simply noncreative, uneducated, mentally ill, or witless, and ran out of other options. The question is not whether we trust them, the question is whether we should continue to imprison them simply because they are untrustworthy.

          Being untrustworthy, generally, is not a good enough reason to imprison someone. It is, however, a good enough reason to regulate their gun purchasing habits. Or so the courts have ruled.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          So the courts can’t be trusted to follow the constitution…..and yet you TRUST them to tell you what is right and wrong? So traitors to their oath are worthy of your trust? What am I missing here? You don’t trust small time crooks, but have full faith in the big time ones that trample the rights of a nation of people?

        11. avatar Dave says:

          Paul,

          Yep, that pretty much nails it. Even if you and I both disagree with a judge, they are still a judge, and they still get to decide who gets their gun rights back.

          Just because you call someone a traitor doesn’t make them a traitor.

        12. avatar Paul G. says:

          But they DO NOT have that power. They stole it from the people. That is the point. Today people just assume that the court has that power, nobody has ever challenged it, and Congress doesn’t care so long as it benefits them more often than it harms them.

        13. avatar Pat says:

          People were talking about nonviolent felons. We don’t need new laws because even the violent ones can get their claws on guns way easier non legally.

        14. avatar peirsonb says:

          I’m still in the process of forming a coherent opinion on this topic myself, so pardon me if this is a little too naive….

          I heard it said once that God gives every person one life. When a person commits a murder they have taken a life they are not entitled to. It then becomes the State’s duty to relieve them of one.

          I agree with sentiment, so my argument would be if it is the State’s duty to remove a person’s life under this extreme circumstance then why would RKBA be any different?

        15. avatar Hal says:

          “It is foolish to not see grey areas of trust. I trust a felon to move in society after they served their time, but I don’t trust them to do so while armed. I would also add that when I say felon I mean a violent felon.”

          BULLSHIT. Let me get this straight, releasing violent felons (the real kind like rapists and murderers, not the got-in-a-barfight-once kind) is cool. However, the moment you slip a weapon into their hands you’re uneasy? You’re doing EXACTLY what anti-RKBA zombies do: attributing supernatural powers of persuasion to inanimate objects. If that person cannot be trusted with a weapon then THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED AT ALL. Such a person should never, EVER, EVER be free to walk in society again. For Christ sake use your head. Basically what you’re saying is that by forfeiting their RKBA they’ll magically decide to become upright citizens. That’s about as retarded as gun-free zones dude. You’re living in a dream world and you’re making the same vapid mistakes that anti-gunners do. Snap out of it.

          “Also we probably don’t have the money or space to house every violent felon for life.”

          BULLSHIT! We have overcrowding prisons for one reason and one reason only: the malum prohibitum war on drugs. Toss it and we’ll have enough room to house every murderer, rapist, armed robber, child-toucher and serial-wife beater in their own cell and STILL have room to shut down half the prisons in the nation. Plus the fines from decriminalization to boost revenue which will fund the prisons.

        16. avatar Paul G. says:

          We have a winner!!!

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @peirsonb: A quick answer to the question that you posed is that the State is not God. The Creator endowed the individual with rights and only the Creator can take them. Granted, the People live under a certain contractual agreement with government that we loan it specific enumerated privileges and put ourselves under a judicial system through the contract. However the power structure is as thus: Creator > Individual > Government. Therefore, neither man nor government can actually take an individual’s rights.

      2. avatar Angry AZ says:

        If you can’t trust em you gotta be willing to put em down or out….. just saying

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yup. Put ’em down.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      shawn,

      I could potentially agree if we only had perfect (noble, highly intelligent, incorruptible) people in all positions of government. However, that is not the case. Even worse, our government can quite literally declare anything to be a felony. That means government can disarm just about the entire population by legislative fiat. And once the entire population is disarmed, government can do anything it wants.

      Sorry, the risk outweighs the reward.

    3. avatar Jared says:

      It’s not hard to be a felon.

      Having expired prescription meds is a federal felony.

      So is having prescription meds outside of their approved containers (weekly med packs from Walgreens).

      Now i’ve established you are a felon who hasn’t been convicted yet…. Turn in your guns 🙂

      Same for almost every state and local cop who violated the federal gun free schools act while off duty.

      1. avatar CGinTX says:

        You’re correct it’s not THAT hard to be a felon, but the “prescription drugs out of their containers” and expired meds is not correct. Most state and federal statutes require only that the drugs were ORIGINALLY obtained lawfully with a prescription. There’s no time limit, either, and while I personally wouldn’t carry around hydrocodone without the bottle, even if you’re arrested for it, providing the prescription for it will be a successful affirmative defense.

      2. avatar BillC says:

        Yup, it’s pretty easy to break laws, and that’s accidentally. Just sit back at the end of the week, and think about how many laws you broke for that week. It’s surprising. Granted most of those are minor stuff, like speeding, but it’s just as easy to break a felony law for a second, and not even know it.

    4. avatar dale says:

      Considering the astoundingly stupid things that come under the heading of “Felony” these days, I’m afraid I’ll have to take issue with any blanket “Felons shouldn’t be allowed….” statement.

    5. avatar Paul G. says:

      Rights cannot be lost. While serving sentence, one’s rights are relinquished to the state, as you are a ward under state supervision. Once the sentence is served, you are a free man. All rights are legitimately yours again, despite what government has decided. If not so, the government has responsibility to care for your well-being.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        I would have to say that your rights are not even relinquished, they are just very thoroughly suppressed. And you probably had that coming and shouldn’t complain too much cuz ya could be ded!

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          As a ward of the state the state is allowed to decide if/when/how you exercise your rights. They are your legal guardians so to speak.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          And if you were convicted of felony speeding? Should we allow the state to suppress our ability to defend ourselves over that?

          There are many non-violent felonies.

          http://www.maxim.com/true-crime/7-felonies-youve-probably-committed-your-lifetime

          Where do we draw the line between nonviolent felons and violent felons? What about accidental vehicular manslaughter? Should that person have his RTKBA suppressed after release?

          I say we don’t draw a line. If a criminal is released from prison after he has paid his debt as dictated by our justice system then his “rights” should no longer be suppressed. Jurors that know that a person such as this that can legally retain the RTKBA will instinctively assign stiffer penalties – and this is the way it should be IMO.

      2. avatar Gregolas says:

        If rights cannot be lost, then how does the State have a right to execute murderers if murderers have a right to life? Or for that matter, how does a victim (or a cop defending an intended victim) have a right have a right to kill a murderer trying to unlawfully kill them?

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          He is executed while still a ward of the state. His rights are delegated to the state during that time. If he were to be freed, he again has rights.

    6. avatar Cliff H says:

      Shawn, PLEASE go back over the last few days and read the posts and comments. This tired argument has been dealt with ad nauseum.

      Like the 28 or so other items in the Bill of Rights, what are being described, outlined and protected from government interference are NATURAL rights as best the Founders could describe them. These are rights belonging to each individual, not bestowed or allowed by the state. They bear, to the same degree that we can as fallible humans describe them, the same weight as natural scientific laws. They were NOT bestowed upon us by government fiat, nor can they be repealed by government legislation. The best any government can hope for is to use their superior access to force to repress those rights, and THAT is the definition of tyranny.

      So yes, a criminal or a felon or a person whose religion we do not agree with still retains his natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The only thing that you can do is that if such person attempts to violate YOUR natural rights you can shoot (back) and resolve the issue. Any other attempt to prior restraint is the road to tyranny and is prohibited by the Second Amendment.

      1. avatar Gregolas says:

        No Cliff, Denying RKBA to felons is NOT prior restraint , b/c they have proven by a felonious, intentional, (and therefore voluntary) act that they are willing to forfeit their future RKBA in order to harm another citizen in the present. The State is merely ratifying their unwise decisions.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Wait until they make it a felony to say dumb things on the net.

        2. avatar Hal says:

          I wonder how it feels to merely pay lip service to liberty…

    7. avatar John Fritz says:

      shawn, do you understand exactly what a ‘felon’ is? Because I think a huge number of people don’t. They don’t get that the term felon refers to nothing more than an individual breaking a certain threshold of the length of time they’ll be punished for a given crime. Being a felon gives no real indication of how bad the committed crime was. It doesn’t automatically mean you killed little babies with a hammer or sold heroin to kindergarteners.

      Denying gun rights from violent criminals has merit. Lumping all felons into a bucket of gun prohibition is effing stupid.

    8. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Isn’t it a felony to boost HBO? Or to peddle a bootleg brand names across state lines? (“Roolex?!” WTF?!) Or to be in possession of a particularly large, albeit arbitrary, amount of various, shall we say, agricultural products?

      Equipped with more than a passing familiarity with true villainy, wouldn’t the Founders have found a distinction between truly high crimes and the crime of merely getting high? For example, the former could well entail lifelong loss of 2A caliber rights, while the latter, not so much, despite having been sternly slapped by authorities with the equally stern label of “felony?”

    9. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      A felon who’s paid their debt to society should no longer be restricted from full citizenship.

      If folks object to that, then sentences need to be longer. Parolees should be restrictable, not those who are presumably free citizens again.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Parolees are restrictable. They are free on restrictions in lieu of serving their full sentence, They are being allowed to prove they can be trusted to return to society. Many end up back inside. A prisoner who has fulfilled his sentence to include parole if it was granted, should be a full citizen.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    You are not an insurrectionest, armed or otherwise. You, like the vast majority of us are still working within the system to achieve our goals. And for the most part, we are winning.

    1. avatar 24/7 Pro says:

      Yes, we are MOSTLY winning, but there may come a time where violent insurrection is not only a thought about, but NEEDED.

      I dread when that day comes.

      But I know I will never obey unconstitutional orders or laws that place me at odds with my God given right to defend my life.

      Notice I DO NOT say “unlawful” orders. As laws are only made to be enforced on the people willing to abide in them. They are disregarded by the “Elite” and the criminals all the same.

      Here is a good video on this topic:

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      It is my (not so) humble opinion that the people we are working AGAINST are the insurrectionists who are attempting to overthrow our Constitutional government from within using every political maneuver they can devise. If the time for rebellion comes it will not be against our Constitutional government, but against those who have perverted our Constitution and hijacked our government.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Like the current federal administration?

  5. avatar Kyle says:

    Imagine if they restricted the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth, etc…in the way some places do the Second.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      You mean like they do in New York?

  6. avatar Jason says:

    I am a staunch supporter of the second amendment. I however side with my favorite president George Washington. Who personally rode out during the Whiskey Rebellion,(only president to do so I believe) to let regular Americans know that armed insurrection will not be tolerated against a lawfully elected government of the United States. I will lament along side you the day that protection is voted away from us, I swear I will. It is after all a protection from the government, that secures a right that I already have. I will meet that day,with whatever means I posses, to resist against it. But as long as it voted away and not stripped from me. For if it was……..

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      The second amendment does not give you the right to keep or bear arms, it merely makes that extant right officially enumerated in the Constitution. The right existed prior to the Bill of Rights and will continue to exist even if the 2A were stricken from the Constitution.

    2. avatar Bruce B. says:

      Is someone “lawfully elected” when they use the IRS to intimidate their opposition? The DOJ to threaten journalists? I’ll stop there.

    3. avatar JoshtheViking says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Hitler lawfully elected?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Initially, but not subsequently nor did most of his decisions have electoral input.

    4. avatar De Facto says:

      You said “I will lament along side you the day that protection is voted away from us, I swear I will.” Should I assume that you will be all right with the Government confiscating all wages earned above 20k? Or saying that people of certain religious, or ethnic groups are not allowed to vote? According to your logic, as long as it’s the voice of the people, it’s fine.

      Consider for a moment. I work hard for my money. I’m responsible. I care about the economy and current issues. I have more understanding of these things than the average American. I contribute (albeit grudgingly) Taxes.

      Now consider that in America today, a homeless alcoholic who lives by using foodstamps and begging has the same vote as I do.

      The typical kneejerk reaction (thoroughly trained into us) is that “Voting is a RIGHT! For EVERYONE!”

      No. It’s not.

      We were given a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Our Founding Fathers did NOT like Democracy, believing (rightly) Democracies to be as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths. (Please read about the French Revolution if you want further proof of that sentiment.) Suffrage was not universal in America at the time of it’s founding, and I’m not talking about slaves or women (those I consider separate issues).

      (1) You had to own land in order to vote. In America (at the time) that was a measure of worth. Land was there, free for the taking, so anyone with the willingness to work hard could have their own home. The idea being you had to EARN the right to vote. You had to be a contributor.

      (2) Also consider: Our senators were NOT supposed to be elected by the masses. Senators were supposed to be elected/appointed by your STATE LEGISLATURE. Indirect election.

      So if we regress to the suffrage rules of our founding fathers..
      Those on welfare/the Government Dole would be unable to vote, and large city populations would matter far less.

      In short? Significant chunks of the current Democratic voter base would be unable to vote.

      So I’m afraid I disagree. I do not accept that any Democratically elected legislature has the right to infringe or remove any of my rights. I will not accept Tyranny of the majority. The Government, or the Majority, infringes and violates my rights at their own peril. I, at least, will not go quietly.

    5. avatar peirsonb says:

      I am not an insurrectionist. I personally believe that we live under the greatest government ever concieved by man. As corrupt as it is, the concept is nearly perfect as a form of government.

      At the same time there ARE times when even a properly elected government must feel the wrath of the people. In the case of Washington, he had a duty to put down the rebellion. Now, had it been successful, we would be talking about the righteousness of their cause.

      Similar to the southern States in 1860. They felt that their way of life was being threatened by their elected government (and no, not just their “right” to own slaves. There was much more at issue in the Civil War). The union had a duty to put down the rebellion.

      When man feels that their liberty is threatened it is a matter of time before the people rise up against their government, elected or not.

      It was just today that I did a little extrapolation. 3% of the population of the colonies took arms during the revolution. Today, that would amount to an army of over nine million people fighting their government.

      I genuinely hope that we never see an armed revolution. I fear the government that rises up will be worse than what it replaced.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Im a firm believer in the 2nd amendment.
    I for one just don’t and cant understand what part of “Shall Not Be INFRINGED” don’t the rest of Americans understand.
    It is plain simple old English.
    With absolutely no different meaning in modern english then it did 250 years ago.

  8. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “Anything that shrinks to size and power of government in our lives is a good thing for The People Of The Gun everyone.”

    Fixed it for ya.

    Great article, Robert.

  9. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Nicely done, sir.
    Have a cigar. You’ve earned it.

  10. avatar Accur81 says:

    The personal stories are an excellent rebuttal to the anti-gun rhetoric. The single mom with a psycho ex, the family living in a crappy part of town, the responsible citizen denied the right to car because of their zip code. Meanwhile the government employee and the privileged don’t seem to have any issue with their secret service protection, army of cops, or armed personal security guards.

  11. avatar Ardent says:

    I previously posted this in response to the housekeeping article on flames a few days ago, it’s even more appropo here:

    I thought Dirk’s fascination with that. . . thing was lewd and disgusting however also quite hilarious. I liked to imagine it made her uncomfortable to read reports of what he said. It’s this derision, this sense of disdain that so many decry as being inappropriate that we use to normalize one another and keep people moving with the herd. A single person isn’t much to be concerned with, our power (whether political or absolute) lies in collaboration with one another and in order to secure it we must compromise, not with our enemies, but rather with those whom we in principle agree and disagree only in the detail.

    That said, and while insisting that I, like every citizen, reserve the right to liberty not only when it’s there for the taking but even when it must be wrested from the hands of tyrants, some things that have been said here about have caused for me no minor concern regarding the tone and temper of the post.

    I suppose that each of us may view ‘those essential tripwires’ that Jefferson spoke of differently and while I have no doubt that many have been crossed it’s just as important to remember that the means to redress those grievances still very much lies in the ballot box and the jury box, that is, within the process of peaceful government and not yet with the cartridge box and violent revolt from without.

    It may be that there is coming a time to fight but it is not assured and this isn’t that time. Our right to speech is surely infringed but no so severely that we cannot make such political speech as influences elections and thus tempers the actions of those elected to govern.

    Our right to arms in certainly infringed, but not so severely that each of us cannot, by lawful exercise of his liberty, possess a rifle of military utility, a sufficient supply of ammunition and the freedom to train with it and bear it with him nearly enough for rapid use.

    We are certainly saddled under so many laws that none of us may be sure when he is afoul one of more of them and at risk of the further loss of liberty and this is its self a form of tyranny severe enough to call one to action, but not yet to arms. Before you take up the rifle take up the pen, the keyboard and the microphone, take up a sign and take to the street, take up the phone and use all of these to influence seated executives and legislatures, influence others to vote for liberty, vote with ballots, dollars and feet, but not with bullets.

    There are surely those who fear that the time for revolution will pass without one and that the moment when resistance would have been effective will be lost. I sympathize with you but I worry more that those who already advocate revolution would have one too soon, when peaceful means to resolve their concerns are still available. Consider this: those who would use violence to accomplish their ends when peaceful means exist are themselves and by definition tyrants and despots. Violence is its own form of tyranny.
    If the political process seems convoluted, difficult and expensive imagine then the struggle, the cost and the confusion attendant on even ineffective violent revolution, then imagine what a successful one might look like. The hardest fight of all may not be a war of rifles but the political process of winning the peace that comes after since there is no guarantee such a peace would be won and violence, once started, can be very hard to end. Then there is this; there is no guarantee that what follows a revolution is more security of liberty, in fact history is replete with examples of how moderate governments have dissolved into tyrannical dictatorships at the hands of internal violence and insurrection.

    Hyperbole is what it is, and the internet could be considered the greatest vehicle ever conceived for its use, but for those who are earnest in their yearning to tear down what greater men have made, paid for in blood, and defended on all fronts, please, save your anger, indignation and energy for a time when it’s appropriate, for now is not the time for revolution.

  12. avatar 505markf says:

    My question is this: when does a government duly elected become tyrants? What is the point at which this can happen? How much abridgement is allowable, albeit detestable, by freedom loving people? How much does it take? I agree with Ardent that we aren’t there yet.

    What if the congress passes a law that bans possession of all firearms, the president signs it, and SCOTUS upholds it. The law of the land now demands that every firearm be turned in. I get how deplorable that would be, and how unlikely that it would happen (in America, at least). I get how it violates the original Constitution, yet SCOTUS can legally interpret that document in whatever way it wishes. We can all say it is wrong, but it would be lawful. If lawful, would it be tyranny?

    Tyranny is a hard thing to define. We see people across the globe, heck even in the US, willfully surrendering personal liberty all the time (e.g., Patriot Act) in the name of safety. If the body of the people is complicit in this surrender, is it tyranny? Maybe the definition of tyranny should be reserved for those who love freedom and liberty above all else, for no one else is qualified to define it. Just a thought, if not a good one.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Which is why the scotus was never intended to rule over the constitutionality of laws. That is NOT a power delegated to them. See Marbury v. Madison if you need more information. The power to decide matters of constitutionality would be one of those powers that was not delegated, therefore it was in the hands of the people, or the states, to decide.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I’m confused as to how you drew the exact opposite conclusion from Marbury v. Madison as did the court, and then you cite the decision itself?

        If not the court, then who? You? Every individual?

        If you live in a nation of laws, and those laws must fit within a constitutional framework, someone must be sure they do. If no one is charged with the duty, then any law can be made. If everyone is charged with the duty, then no law can be made, as someone will always object.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          No the decision created judicial review, it is not a power delegated the court by the constitution. The case is a usurpation of the powers delegated to the people or the states.
          It is all in the constitution, try reading it sometime. Powers not delegated to the court cannot be assumed.
          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
          Yes, we are a nation of laws. Scotus needs to follow them as much as anyone else.

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.”

        Marshall, CJ, writing in Marbury

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          So a judge, a life appointee, justifies his own usurpation of power, and you just blithely agree to it? You need a full jury agreed to convict a burglar, but 50 percent plus one of scotus can render the constitution moot? And they answer to nobody?

        2. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Paul,

          It doesn’t matter if people agree, that is the actual system. If the Supreme Court decides that unlimited corporate money is “free speech”, then it is. If the SCOTUS decides that a health care mandate is a tax, then it is.

          I happen to disagree with both conclusions, but if you want a different system, then you need a different constitution.

        3. avatar Paul G. says:

          But it ISN’T. Show me where scotus has the power to do that…..show me in the constitution. It isn’t a power granted them.

        4. avatar Dave says:

          Article 3, section 2, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…”

        5. avatar Paul G. says:

          It doesn’t say what you claim. Where does it say they get to determine the constitutionality of laws….HINT….it doesn’t!!! Marbury v. Madison was the case where they illicitly appropriated a power not granted them in the constitution. If they themselves cannot follow the constitution, how can we allow them to interpret it?

        6. avatar Dave says:

          Paul,

          I understand what you are saying, and I even agree. (Mostly.) You are correct that the power of judicial review was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

          However, Article 3 begins with “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court…” At that time, this power would have included judicial review, since no other power would have served as a check on congressional or presidential actions.

          Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both mentioned judicial review as one of the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Federalist Papers. In fact, they considered this one of the more powerful features of the Constitution, and one of the best arguments in favor of its adoption.

          Even prior to 1789, state courts had overturned several laws based purely on judicial review of the law as compared to state constitutions. Although Marbury has been characterized as a power grab, it was one that was coming for a long time.

          Still, the danger of an activist court is real. Voters have some direct power over Congress and the President, since we can simply vote out the ones we disagree with. We have no such power over the SCOTUS. More to the point, two of the more activist decisions in recent years were both designed to weaken any power that might come from voting.

          The effect of the Citizens United ruling was to let politicians raise any amount of money, and spend it as they see fit. This not only invalidated an existing law that had been rewritten and extended by Congress, it essentially created a new law that did not previously exist.

          As an example of how the new law works, the conservative “nonprofit” Liberty Central was allowed to raise unlimited secret cash to fight President Obama’s “hard-left agenda.” Liberty Central solicited donations from major corporations based on a promise that they would use their influence and connections to overturn Obamacare. Liberty Central was owned at the time by Clarence Thomas’ wife.

          The message was received loud and clear by corporations all across America: The only votes that matter are the votes on the Supreme Court.

          The second decision, of course, is “Shelby County” On june 25, the Supreme Court threw out a large part of the voting rights act, based on their opinion that minorities no longer faced ballot restrictions in the South. Within hours of the ruling, Texas started re-imposing ballot restrictions. Since then, several other states have joined the party in a big way, including hurdles to registration, new voter identification requirements, polling place location restrictions, hours limits and resources re-allocation. You would not think that it would be legal to close all of the voting locations except for a single one in a police station in a distant part of town, but you would be incorrect.

          From a strictly judicial point of view, ‘Shelby County’ was every bit as much of a power grab as Marbury was. It represents one of the first time in history that the Supreme Court had simply re-written a law in order to make it less friendly to poor and minorities.

          So if you are worried that the SCOTUS will take your gun rights away, I would think the more immediate concern would be that they will take your voting rights away. (Unless you happen to be rich and white, in which case, no worries.)

          Once the power of the vote is reduced to a minor consideration, then the danger of tyranny becomes more real. I doubt the people on this board have much to worry about though. The real power in the country does not come from the President or his oddly ineffective website, it comes from the corporations that have spent hundreds of millions electing and appointing their puppets in positions of power.

          The only reason you have any second amendment rights left is because you are no threat to the corporations that (mostly) control the government. Even on the off-chance that you and your friends were able to organize an insurrection and overthrow the government, what would you replace it with? Corporate power in place of government power? That’s what we have now.

          Odds are that the corporations have their hands around the “insurrection” throat as well. If the far right element were able to organize and overthrow, the new government would give even less rights to individuals. You would be allowed to own guns of course, but with no minimum wage, no unions, no health care, no retirement, and no schools, you would find very little worth fighting for.

          The danger you have outlined is real, but saying that it is unconstitutional is not the answer. You are correct that the heat is being turned up slowly, but we will all boil before we do anything about it.

          The NRA, and this board, and the far right seem to believe that the answer to our eroding rights to to make sure people have more guns. This is a simplistic idea that doesn’t even cover first base. Since you are familiar with Marbury, then surely you realize that more guns aren’t the answer. You can no more arm yourself against a bad SCOTUS decision than you can arm yourself against a sinking ship.

          But there are things that you can do. Currently, the Republicans in the Senate are holding up the nomination of Nina Pillard, for example, because she once made a comment that might have been interpreted as being pro-choice. She is a champion of the rights of the individual, which Republicans can no longer permit even on an appeals court, much less the SCOTUS.

          This is no longer a question of Democrat vs. Republican, though. It is now a question of supporting the rights of the individual or the rights of the corporation.

          Robert Bork was defeated, in part, because of his pro-corporation views. Although a staunch conservative, he believed that the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed people the right to participate in a government militia. Bork was ultimately replaced with Anthony Kennedy, who has proven to be a swing vote not only on issues of gun control but virtually everything else. Had Bork been approved, the court would have had a solid conservative majority, but also a weakened 2nd Amendment. Kennedy voted with Scalia on Heller (and McDonald v Chicago), for example, where Bork clearly would not have.

          Roberts is the most solidly pro-corporation justice ever to lead the SCOTUS. He is also a solid pro-gun vote, but the two issues have not yet come into conflict. Roberts originally appeared to be someone who would bring qualifications rather than ideology to his court rulings. Instead he has become just one more partisan activist voting however the corporations tell him to.

          Even his decision on the ACA, while reviled in conservative circles, allowed them to mount a more effective campaign for congressional seats that would have otherwise fallen to Democrats. Moreover, the insurance companies will profit more on the ACA than they would have without it.

          Want to know how the court will eventually vote on any given issue? Follow the money. If there really were any money in gun control (there isn’t) then we would have all been disarmed many years ago.

        7. avatar Paul G. says:

          No, it would not. The exact duties and powers of the court are well laid out. Judicial review is NOT one of them. Capiche? If it isn’t given to a branch to the courts, it is reserved to the people or to the states. Reread it a thousand times, read the justification in Marbury…it just doesn’t work. The power does not belong to the scotus.

          That the power was mentioned in the Federalist papers but not given to the courts specifically pretty much seals it as not theirs to use.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Thanks for reading that wall of text Mark, so many people don’t (won’t). I’m glad that you agree that we haven’t arrived at a place where insurrection is the only answer because I steadfastly maintain that it is not.

      However, to what you said about a general ban and confiscation/order to turn in, I think that would be the tripwire I couldn’t ignore. I cannot, as a free citizen, turn in my arms and I will not go peacefully into slavery. It’s not that there isn’t a point at which I would fight, rather that we’re not there yet and with luck will never be.

    3. avatar Redleg says:

      And from the preeminent expert on the subject we have this:

      “… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” – Thomas Jefferson

      How prophetic his words proved to be.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Absolutely. I still am amazed that people who already know they cannot have faith in their elected officials can turn to arbitrary and not even unanimous decisions by a group of appointees (for life) as capable of deciding constitutionality.

  13. avatar Albaniaaaa says:

    As far as I am aware of Long Guns are not required to be registered in NJ only Handguns. Still stupid. Sadly I lost all my Handguns in a boating accident.

    Great post though. I love it.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Insurrectionist, insurgent, patriot, revolutionary, rebel, terrorist, freedom fighter- different names for the same thing.

    The only thing that decides the difference is which side of fence you set on and which side is the winner.

    *Post enough key words on the Internet today to end up on a another gov’t list, check.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    In the modern lexicon, an “insurrectionist” is anyone who disagrees with the Democrat power elite. A “racist” is anyone who thinks that when the President farts, it doesn’t sound like Beethoven or smell like roses. A “misogynist” is anyone who thinks that some men are decent people and some women are not. A “gun nut” is anyone who thinks that having a gun is a Constitutional right and a damn good idea to boot.

    So if someone attacks you with any of these perverse terms, take it as a compliment. I know that I do. It proves that we’re right, because if we were wrong, they wouldn’t have to rewrite the English language.

    1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

      When you put it that way, I feel no guilt for being an insurrectionist, racist, misogynistic gun nut. I’m sure they’ll call us traitors, charge us with sedition and hang us before long…oh well. Guilt is a rope that wears thin.

      If that is what America will ultimately become, If they get their way and the US turns into what the progressive/collectivist/moochers want it to become, I don’t think I’d want any part in that…

    2. avatar George says:

      Well said. The Democrat-supporting statist sheeple and their elitist masters’ pejoratives are, to me, compliments. If a tyrant-supporting piece of garbage feels insulted, then I know I have done or said something right.
      There is nothing to gain from compromise with the enemies of freedom.

      1. just a note of agreement-

  16. avatar the ruester says:

    I’ve seen this before. Usually, the grabber will ridicule the idea of resistance as a tyranny in and of itself. “So, if we all pass a law and you don’t like it, you will kill us?” Then comes “the government will just kill you and prove we were right.” That train is never late. And they NEVER understand that such a statement is itself a threat to impose tyranny on said ridiculed paranoid gun nut. The circle goes on and on and on…

  17. avatar maiko says:

    On the GOVERNMENT TYRANNY point:

    Everyone likes to point out that all-out conflict with the government using small arms would be ineffective. This is a straw man argument. The Second Amendment is there to prevent all-out conflict with the government.

    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it formalizes the fact that the People have not relinquished their natural right of defense to the State in the highest law of the land. This prevents a State monopoly on force, which promotes an ingrained balance of power that need not be tested to prove effective. By the Second Amendment, the instrumentalities of the State (police, military, etc.) are no greater (in theory) than ordinary men, and THIS is what prevents the State and its instrumentalities from taking grave action against the People in mass. This concept is readily apparent when you meet a good police officer that has a healthy respect of the people he polices, or a good soldier who identifies with his civilian community back home–because they know they are fundamentally just one of the People and have become nothing greater by their mere access to the tools of force. This is what prevents good, hardworking people that serve us from becoming the people that oppress us. On that note, one could argue that the Second Amendment is now more important than ever.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      This is a very good point. I hadn’t thought of it quite that way before.

      1. avatar maiko says:

        It also explains the mentality of those leading the Kingdom of New York City.

  18. avatar cubby123 says:

    Suppoting the 2nd Amendment, makes you an American, they are already communists,just listen to how they talk;’why do you need a…….?’ isn’t THAT WHAT THE COMMIES ASK?;why do you need food?Comrad?Just eat the goolosh like everybody else.

  19. avatar Tom says:

    “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” – 101 Things to Do ‘Til the Revolution (1996)

  20. avatar RKBA says:

    Almost out of time…

  21. avatar Ruddee says:

    Very well said RF…..

  22. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This is terrific reading Robert. Great article.

  23. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The natural and god given right to rebellion, armed or otherwise was specifically mentioned in the Preamble of Declaration of Independence:

    “…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    The founders wrote the constitution to be a static document, not easily mutable to “light and transient causes” of their day or ours. They had the wisdom to write a guarantee to the people via the Bill of Rights that their natural, god given rights would not be stripped from them. The United States Constitution is the finest constitution ever written, and the greatest example of American exceptionalism on record.

    If the Bill of Rights are the walls built by the founders to protect the people, then the Second Amendment is the gate. Remove the gate and everything within the walls is ripe for plunder.

    So if being a good steward of the principles laid out by the founders, protecting my natural god given rights, and striving for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness makes me an insurrectionist, terrorist or or any other “ist” they wish to brand me with then I will own that, and be proud. I AM AN ARMED INSURRECTIONIST!

    And based on the signatures on the Declaration of Independence, I am in some damn fine company.

  24. avatar Roscoe says:

    Great article bears revisiting regularly.

    Great comments and discussions. Well worth the read.

    Thank you all.

  25. avatar Dave says:

    I agree with your argument that there is too much government regulation, but don’t necessarily agree with the philosophy that any government regulation is tantamount to tyranny.

    Some government regulation has its roots in valid needs, such as the elimination of child labor, the protection of our food supply, the banking regulations that (should) prevent asset managers from churning your pension plan, etc…

    Similarly, I can see certain limitations on firearms that serve to protect society rather than enslave it. Is it your argument that convicted rapists should be allowed to carry firearms? How about the mentally ill? How about children? In each case, you might argue that a few should be allowed to carry, but no one would argue that all of them should. This is the essence of regulation.

    Fortunately, we have a court system that decides which regulations are (and are not) constitutional. Although some regulations seem to violate the intent of the Second Amendment, you do not get to decide for yourself which ones are legal. You merely get to decide which ones you will obey.

    If you choose not to obey, it is not an insurrection, it is merely an illegal act. For it to be an insurrection, you would have to be trying to overthrow the government with violence. What you are doing is advocating for change, and using mostly peaceful means, such as voting. Carrying a gun in such circumstances is more similar to civil disobedience than to armed insurrection.

    Which is a good thing, because many people approve of civil disobedience, but not treason. Treason is not to be started on a whim, and is rarely settled without bloodshed. Regardless of what you read (endlessly) in the comments section, “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” are not the same thing.

    Regardless, the public opinion seems to be swinging your direction. Gun rights advocates are positioned to win big in the next set of elections, proving that we are not living in a tyranny after all.

    We should be much more worried about the several states that are actively working to keep people from voting. No matter what they say, anyone who is that worried about fair voting does not have your interest at heart.

  26. avatar Adub says:

    I think armed insurrection will happen if the government (state, federal, etc.) launches a wave of door-to-door confiscations/searches. I mean, are all the people who tooled up in NY with AR-15s just going to surrender them quietly? And if so, why’d they buy them?

  27. avatar BillC says:

    Well written, RF. I enjoyed this.

  28. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I believe most of you are missing the big picture here.
    Who in heck ever said we live in a democracy??
    Those old white men being as smart as they were made sure this country was a REPUBLIC……..
    This aint no dammed democracy here.
    The powers of The Republic have been usurped by those who think this is a democracy.
    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

  29. Mr Farago, I found your letter of good source and well said on all your noted points- I happen to know of Energy Source[s] that could and should be free to all Americans and the Tech passed to all of the Earth- They have cures for every Cancer and Disease ‘they’ the NWO Banking Systems and their yes-boy puppets- They amuse themselves with Idolatry and Pagan sacrifice and the lifestyles and professions to accomplish all agendas- The ‘gun situation and the Second Amendment’ should not even be a debated issue- Those that play with words and those BOGUS AND CONTROLLING Court Systems appointed for changing all supportive laws from under the main ‘stage’ and then everyone joins in on the game of words and TV and Politics arguing and debating over things that should be NO DEBATE! You and everyone that is capable of clear and abstract thought process wants things peaceful and quiet with everyone just getting along- BUT, this bunch of drugged-up mind-controlled Universal Soldiers have slaughtered over a quarter Billion Peoples in just 500 Years and they have become very efficient at destruction and spending money to slay the WHOLE WORLD BECAUSE?{THEY! the Whole World ALL ARE FIXING TO ATTACK AMERICANS and our Boarders- AND WHO COMES FIRST? THE AMERICANS AND THEIR WELFARE, THEIR SECURITY AND THEIR FREEDOM- The Government and the UN just has to eradicate everyone in the whole world for you and me-} And they are shifting into high gear and using a lot of small potatoes to distract and control minds- The gun issue should not be on any table in America- And asking all nice with a cherry on top ain’t making it happen- The People need to team with the cops, who should have long since had this done with the [unarmed] to be given arms in which event required the American Citizens and those working for them and living with them then do need to be together on who the real criminals are and the real cops would and should already be doing something about the way things are swallowing them and the Constitution up and spitting out Marxism- The Government will slay the cops as well with the next ready force of brain-dead Zombie Soldiers because all the ‘Citizens That PAY To Be The Prey’ won’t be around- Hint/Hint, where does trouble just seem to start up with a Country’s Government turning its guns on its own people? Where does it happen that Terrorism and Rebels who want to kill everybody they went to school and worked with for 10 or 20 years or Children? Who in the World can save their day? YES! The American Government, they can save the day! What does all these Countries have in common that began to hurt their own people? They spied on the Countries, picked out their Leaders, Patriots, and Fighters and the Intelligent and deemed them all to be rebels and terrorists, disarmed all the Citizens, took full control over that Countries Government, Politics and all Banking and Enforcement Personnel, and proceeded to kill them all and in the process [each and every Country] that was INVADED, the Peoples all robbed, rapped, Murdered and the Treasuries and Natural Resources stolen away back to the World Bankers courtesy of the US and UN Government Universal Soldiers- Food for thought, who’s left that isn’t disarmed, invaded, robbed, rapped, murdered and the treasuries and properties all stolen away? gwt I doubt that many will see this comment and if one does and wishes to reply, I doubt that I will be allowed to receive that as well- My real messages have dropped constantly and received responses are nearly non-existent any longer- Being forced to comply with westhmpsn channel on youtube to be combined with the Google has dropped all my contact replies or re-postings by 50 percent or more- If any can, my email gwthmpsn1@gmail.com and facebook, Wesley Thompson of Richmond and Grants Pass, maybe TN too, I forget but truth is my game and honesty to all, so I try to let a few know what’s fixing to darken your day- But I’ll save that for another time- gwt

  30. avatar TheBear says:

    Good article!

    +1

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Anything that shrinks to (sic) size and power of government in our lives is a good thing for The People.

    There, I fixed part of it for you, RF.

    I was all excited when I read the title. I thought you were getting together a busload of volunteers. 😀 Great post!

  32. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

    The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. FEDERAL Government. Washington D.C. can’t infringe upon any U.S. Citizen’s right (not including Felons) to bear arms. The fact that it applies to individual citizens and not the National Guard was established and ruled upon by the U.S Supreme Court a couple years back. The case that addressed this was from Washington D.C. WHICH IS NOT A STATE and why the US Supreme got involved.

    The confusion here is that the U.S. Constitution applies to the FEDERAL Government, NOT State or Local Governments. Did you know each State has it’s own Constitution? Each State is empowered to do what it seems prudent. I see people all the time beat their chests and scream about the 2nd Amendment and say it is natural and right to carry, open, concealed, without a need for a license, testing or approval from anyone because the Constitution says so. While true the Federal Government can’t but that doesn’t mean your city or state can’t.

    This is why we ALL need to be involved at a State and Local level. Pay attention to local politics which truly affect you more than any of the idiots in DC. Like or hate Bush or Obama, doesn’t affect you near as much as that City Councilman who just voted to zone your street for strip clubs and pawn shops. Know who your local and state elected officials are and contact them. Know the candidate positions on gun rights before you go to vote. If you don’t want your city to turn into Chicago or Detroit make sure you don’t elect politicians like they have.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be able to keep and bear arms anywhere. What if you are the designated driver for the evening and your buddies want to hit up a couple of establishments that serve alcohol? If you are not impaired why shouldn’t you be allowed to carry? Not like bars aren’t in areas of town where you could find yourself in trouble even though you are perfectly legal to be there. Not like major sports arenas are not adjacent to shady areas of town in many cities.

    My point is the anti-gun people are after us at all levels. Anywhere they can get at us. It is their right to try and influence their elected local officials from imposing a ban on magazines that carry more than 7 rounds, or a tax or anything they can think of. WE need to be as vigilant. WE need to be the voice of reason at town hall meetings. EXPOSE their faulty statistics and emotional-inspired half-truths. They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to ensure that the local and State elected officials hear from us as much as they hear from that emotional Mom against guns who doesn’t have a clue.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Sorry, but WRONG.
      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”
      Many years back some states sued and gave the same lame explanation of the BoR not applying to them, which got us into “incorporation arguments”. More tomfoolery of a legalistic nature.
      These people never read the darned thing?
      Once an amendment is ratified, it is part of the constitution, and applies to the whole of the states. Items not covered in the constitution are then the provision of the states.
      In your opinion, the whole idea of outlawing slavery was foolish, since the southern states could have just chosen to not listen, the law only applies to the federal government? I could go on, but that should suffice. Of course the first amendment makes clear that it only applied to Congress, leaving the states authority to limit speech and religion. The supreme court wrongly reinterpreted that later as well. Read the darned thing….and do not allow the selective reinterpretations of the legal beagles to cloud your comprehension. It isn’t all that difficult, until the lawyers redefine simply understood words and phrases. That is all about control.

    2. avatar maiko says:

      Re-read McDonald v Chicago and brush up on your 14th Amendment jurisprudence. 2nd Amendment applies to the States.

  33. avatar ZM 1306 says:

    I am many things, an American, a Patriot, an Insurrectionist, a Free Man.

    I believe people should be free, that they can do what they want so long as it does not bring harm upon another.

    I am proud of my Nation.

    I will die fighting for freedom before I die as a slave.

    I hate being categorized into a group, for I am not defined by a set of ideals set by another.

    I consider myself Insurrectionist because:

    I am in favor of the overthrow of the Governments of the US for their transgressions are great. However, the government must be reinstated with as little modification as possible. It went astray not because it was poorly contrived, but because it was deliberately taken off course by underhanded methods for greedy, selfish, un-American reasons. It is the people and the alterations that perverted our system to retain these very same people that need to be eliminated.

    It is not the revolution that scares me, for one thing that man is good at is destroying the works of other men. What scares me is who will be left to rebuild, how they will rebuild it, and what temptations will put them to the test.

    To me the goal is not revolution, it is not anarchy. The goal is the restoration of America, of Liberty, of Freedom. If we can achieve this without revolution, great, but be an insurrectionist keep the cards on the table and be willing to play your hand.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ9iixXJ6g

    We are supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Can you keep it?

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Good thoughts all around.

    2. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

      ZM: Many people wish they could overthrow the parts of the government they don’t like, and keep the parts they like. That doesn’t make you an insurrectionist, that makes you a dreamer.

      Insurrection implies violence. It means you are talking about killing the people you disagree with. If all you want to do is remove them from office, then you need to vote, not shoot.

      Once you start shooting people, you lose the ability to put things back the way you want them. That is what Caesar meant when he talked about crossing the Rubicon. Once he destroyed the power of the Senate, it was never restored.

      Once you decide that voting will not work, and resort to violence, you are admitting that the other side will do the same. Therefore, if the people who disagree with you are bigger and stronger (or bettter armed), then America will simply be ruled by the person who owns the best weapons.

      The founding fathers were aware of this issue. They threw off the rule of the King because voting did not work. They then established a country where voting works, so that the people would have a less violent way to change things.

      They added the second amendment as a kind of back-up-plan, to keep the central government from assuming the power of a king. It is not needed, though, because you can still elect a new “king” just by voting out the old one.

      If you are worried that your votes are not being fairly counted, so am I.

      1. avatar ZM 1306 says:

        Low Budget Dave

        “Insurrection implies violence. It means you are talking about killing the people you disagree with. If all you want to do is remove them from office, then you need to vote, not shoot.”

        I fully understand that there will be bloodshed. It is something that should not be taken-lightly. I do want to remove them from office and if they are dead are they not effectively removed from office?

        The biggest problem with the concept of vote them out, other than the voting fraud, is the illusion of choice. Romney was not an American candidate… he was “not as bad” as Obama. Our vote, our choice, is always moving in the wrong direction. We need to work to get a real candidate, one that we can rally behind, in office.

        “Once you start shooting people, you lose the ability to put things back the way you want them.”

        Wrong, we were able to patch ourselves back together after the revolution and again after the civil war. If you go about it right, with the right motivations, you will be-able to rebuild. The government requires little modification to be returned to its true path, what is needed is reinforcement of its limitations and instill the right mindset back into the politicians and citizens, an education of the people at the local level could save US the bloodshed, if there is time left.

        “Therefore, if the people who disagree with you are bigger and stronger (or bettter armed), then America will simply be ruled by the person who owns the best weapons.”

        Incorrect, there are many times in history that an opposing force with superior weaponry, training, and funding have lost to a determined few men. It has more to do with the dedication of the people involved.

        “They then established a country where voting works, so that the people would have a less violent way to change things.

        They added the second amendment as a kind of back-up-plan, to keep the central government from assuming the power of a king. It is not needed, though, because you can still elect a new “king” just by voting out the old one.”

        The voting system has been significantly changed since the founding of this nation. We behave more like a democracy than the Republic that we are meant to be. The 2A has nothing to do with Kings, it has to do with the fight against Tyranny. Tyranny is representable by a King, even if you vote out the “king” the tyranny is coming from a group of people, in government, and they are not slowing down. We must keep the option open and plan how to keep it held to the American Principal.

        No one seems to be considering this. They want our guns to increase their survivability. If this option is disregarded and it does come to pass, without direction, it will lead to even worse times for all of humanity.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          ZM,

          You are assuming the people who support you are determined and dedicated. If they were, they would have been able to choose some better candidates to represent them.

          In point of fact, gun owners only become determined and dedicated when it appears someone is about to infringe on their gun rights. That is why they are constantly sounding the alarm that Obama is coming to take away your guns.

        2. avatar Dave says:

          ZM,

          Also, I think people disagree as to where the tyranny is coming from. In your opinion it is coming from government, but that brushes aside the whole question of whether or not our votes matter.

          In my opinion, our votes do matter. If the Republicans had wanted to nominate Sarah Palin instead of Mitt Romney, no one was stopping them from doing so. They only reason they did not is because they perceived she would lose.

          There are those who claim Obama’s election was rigged, but I have yet to see any evidence. By all objective standards, there is much better evidence that Bush’s election was the product of rigging. Still, if there are “secret powers” that could put Bush into office, why did those secret powers fail to install Romney, or McCain, or even Cuccinelli?

          The plain fact is that voting matters. I do not agree with Obama on every issue, but I agree with him more often than with Romney. By voting, we have exerted influence on the way things are done in Washington.

          Although people have complaints, it is still the best available system.

        3. avatar ZM 1306 says:

          Voting does matter and it does have influence. It however is corruptible. The government is made up of people who are Human and being human has a long list of bad traits. Votes do not have the power nor will to keep anyone held to standards or their word. Just like the constitution can not get up and put the system back in order.

          These are things that can be hidden, cast aside, and burned. It is the people who are responsible for bringing the consequences to the actions of those in government. It is the government that has the force that misused, accidentally or intentionally, causes the majority of problems we face today.

          It was quite some time ago that I was reading about some military men who were fed up with the corrupt leadership of their town. To make a long poorly remembered story short. The military guys ran for election were declared the losers, the votes still in the sealed ballot boxes in the local jail house, demanded a public counting of the ballots. Incumbent said no and tried some kind of force play. They armed up and held the incumbent at gunpoint with the group of supporters/enforcers. They got the national guard or some higher level force to show and be a third party who publicly counted the ballots. Turns out that the military guys had won well far ahead of the incumbent.

          Your “official” ballot is cast at the “official” polling place. The “official” ballots are then “officially” counted. The “official” winner is declared by the “officials”.

          This is the problem, the people who are in the system, know the system, and can manipulate the system.
          The best we can do is deliver swift punishment, in any of its many forms, for the committed misdeeds. Currently government is the child from whom the rod was withheld.
          I like the recall efforts that were done as a sample of swift punishment.

        4. avatar Dave says:

          ZM: I don’t believe you. You are telling me that local citizens had to arm themselves to demand a fair vote count? In the United States? When did this happen?

          Certainly there are cases where the National Guard was necessary to insure fair voting. In 1965, LBJ had to call out the National Guard in Alabama because over half the black population in the City of Selma had been prohibited from registering to vote.

          This is a different situation than citizens arming themselves. If the black citizens had armed themselves to try to achieve the same rights, they would have been killed. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

          People who claim that black citizens could have protected their rights with guns have a poor understanding of history.

        5. avatar ZM 1306 says:

          “You are assuming the people who support you are determined and dedicated. If they were, they would have been able to choose some better candidates to represent them.”

          I don’t know what people support me but if they are the ones who pick the candidates then we need to have a talk. As for the people who I know that are willing to take part in, but not start, a government vs citizen war… they are a determined and dedicated kind of people. With a pinch of oddity.

          I would like to run, when I am eligible, for president. I can make one and only one promise. I will not sign into law any law that is frivolous, unconstitutional, un-American, or just unnecessary. So 80-90% of laws passed by congress will be vetoed. May not even get a few hundred laws a year, just like it should be.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Dave: I don’t believe you. You are telling me that local citizens had to arm themselves to demand a fair vote count? In the United States? When did this happen?

          ROTFL my MFAO!

          1946, the Battle of Athens.

          http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

          A short film was even made about it.

          http://youtu.be/U5ut6yPrObw

        7. avatar Dave says:

          John,

          Ha. I believe it now, at least. So obviously, this means the citizens need to be able to arm themselves in case the government tries to infringe on voting rights.

          Maybe if Al Gore’s supporters had been armed, we could have avoided going to war in Iraq.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Dave: You owe ZM 1306 an apology here. So, man up! For a real man of character it would have taken priority over a snarky reply to me.

        9. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          John. Well, yes, clearly I was wrong. I had not heard about the Athens event, and ZM was better informed.

          I still think this is an isolated event, though.

          In most of the rest of the US, and the rest of the world, for that matter, I still doubt that bringing a bunch of guns to city hall will help the situation. In this one case, it was the only way to insure a fair election. But I think the general rule might even be the opposite: If you see a bunch of people with guns fighting it out with the local sheriff, it is not safe to automatically assume the Sheriff is the one breaking the law.

        10. avatar Redleg says:

          Dave said “ZM: I don’t believe you. You are telling me that local citizens had to arm themselves to demand a fair vote count? In the United States? When did this happen?”

          Search “the Battle of Athens” for the answer.

          Many people don’t know of this. Of course this lesson isn’t in the government’s best interests for people to know. They may question the validity of elections and discover that they actually have some power as citizens.

        11. avatar Redleg says:

          Oops, I guess I was late to the party. That’s what I get for replying directly from the e-mail notification.

          Dave said “Maybe if Al Gore’s supporters had been armed, we could have avoided going to war in Iraq.”

          The same could be said of the recent election of Obama and all of those dead voters, you know where more votes were cast than the number of registered voters in the district. Also in states like California where they have the “motor voter law” and non-citizens vote because the DMV enrolls people to vote automatically when they get a license…too bad we didn’t validate and count the ballots there ourselves.

          If all of those questionable things would have been challenged we probably wouldn’t have Barry for term two.

        12. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Redleg,

          There were not any districts where the votes exceeded registered voters. That is just an urban legend, based on a few districts that reported their vote totals in error.

          Also, I doubt the average illegal alien in California ( or anywhere) is willing to risk jail and deportation just to vote.

          In Florida, for example, a long term investigation of voting by illegal immigrants uncovered exactly 27 cases of in-person vote fraud. Every single one of then thought they were required to vote, and nearly half of then claimed to have. Voted Republican.

          So basically, you are wrong.

  34. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Well, our founding fathers said the following in their justification for becoming ‘armed insurrectionists’:

    ‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.’

    I’m with you in not being an armed insurrectionist yet. I don’t believe the evil has become intolerable, and still reversible by peaceful means…

  35. avatar DigDouggler says:

    Mr. Farago – slight correction – New Jersey’s handgun purchase permit system is de facto registration for handguns purchased in the state, however registration of long guns, or handguns not purchased in New Jersey, is completely voluntary, not mandatory.

  36. avatar Randall Meadows says:

    “Pre-insurrectionist”

  37. avatar George says:

    As to Hal’s point above, which I can’t reply to directly for some reason:

    This is the best point I have read in a very long time.

    Also, Paul G., very damn good points here as well.

    If an adult can’t be trusted with a firearm, then they can’t be trusted, period. Either in jail permanently/deported/hanging from the gallows, or free and with the same rights as all free citizens.
    This is not an argument for letting out violent scumbags and letting them be armed, but rather an argument for keeping violent criminals out of society altogether, and respecting free people’s right to keep and bear arms.

  38. avatar Pistolero says:

    Frankly I very much doubt that anyone, ‘holding the reins of authentic power’ in the western world is actually worried about an armed insurrection of the American people. I mean, ‘What for?’

    Instead I think that incendiary government programs like Obamacare, and harsh covertly endorsed economic factors like the insanely high mortgage foreclosure rate, and the outrageously high cost of all petroleum products are deliberately designed to ultimately push the American people into revolt – A revolt the American public cannot possibly win!

    Nobody who’s genuinely well-informed in government is worried about the general American public having access to small arms – Like I said, ‘What for?’ The big winner in any armed insurrection is positively going to be big government which is – now, in the twenty-first century – an absolute and internationally vested power unto itself.

    In the nineteenth century southern citizens thought they could win the Civil War. The truth is that they never had a chance! The same thing is true, today, of big government, and the entire armed American populus: The only thing an armed modern insurrection is going to accomplish is a very great deal of human misery and, ultimately, even greater eccentric government control and even more arrogant domination of the inevitably: blind, deaf, and dumb social masses.

    It’s important to know when you’re beaten; and Americans – with or without small arms – lost effective control of their government more than 100 years ago. Any form of armed insurrection in America today WILL RESULT in the complete annihilation of whatever anemic constitutional rights and other civil privileges that are left.

    One of my favorite spots in New Jersey is a bucolic meadow in Warren County that has a large stream running through the middle with a railroad bridge reaching across it. Someone painted across the iron girders underneath this bridge: ‘There’s more to the picture than meets the eye!’ How many times I’ve driven past this meadow, looked at that bridge, and thought to myself, ‘Whoever wrote that truly understands what planet he’s living on.’ 😉

  39. avatar Redleg says:

    The absolute best analysis that I have seen on this subject anywhere is to be found here by “Frank Pinelander” and it actually warrants its own post:

    http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/pinelander-sends/

    For those unfamiliar with the SF community “Pineland” is the fictional country where those attending the SF “Q” course (SFQC) participate in the Robin Sage exercise at the end of the course prior to graduation. Specializing in armed insurrections, the analysis of “Frank Pinelander,” a subject matter expert in unconventional and guerrilla warfare, is worth your time to read.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email