Quote of the Day: “Assault Weapons” Ownership is A Civil Right Edition Law and Order by Robert Farago | Jan 20, 2013 | 49 comments facebook twitter linkedin email “I don’t ‘need’ my AR any more than Rosa Parks ‘needed’ to sit in the front of that bus.” – anonymous comments Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 08:19 It is a civil right to serve as a citizen-soldier in a Swiss-style militia, and to live in a country without a Standing Army. But now that the Standing Army has unconstitutionally expropriated the task of national defense that assault rifles were designed for, why does a civilian (non-combatant) think he needs one? This is actually a valid question the gun-grabbers are asking. Since politicians ignored the Constitution, we’re down to that “last resort” Jefferson mentioned. It’s a pitiful last resort, because it probably won’t work any better than it did with men-better-than-you at Wounded Knee. This is the White Man’s Ghost Dance. It’s an unintended consequence of their supporting the troops bootlicking the standing army. P.S. The Standing Army has “…Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America (GOA)…” in its sights: Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right Combating Terrorism Center at West Point UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY Jan 15, 2013 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right P.P.S. What part of NO don’t you understand? I don’t see “renewed” there, do you? “To raise and support Armies, but NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Reply WC says: January 20, 2013 at 16:58 We see enough Isreali models on this site, perhaps we can find you a picture of an Isreali well-dressed militia with uteri? Reply Evan says: January 21, 2013 at 08:39 With all of those Tavors coming in that shouldn’t be too hard. Reply AaronW says: January 20, 2013 at 08:27 Pithy quotes won’t sway the Left. They associate gun rights with attempts to suppress/oppress civil rights. Reply mike marriam says: January 20, 2013 at 08:44 Aaron, That’s the way they spin it. We’re missing a great opportunity to establish the 2A as a way to guarantee civil right. The communist take that which they fear and twist it around to discredit or destroy what the fear. They show us our strongest arguments by identifying them before we do and then establishing the narrative in a negative way. I believe civil rights is one of these issues! My guns guarantee that Rosa’s descendants can sit wherever they want to. Make the narrative not white against black but guns against fascist government. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 12:23 “My guns guarantee that Rosa’s descendants can sit wherever they want to.” Are you going to shoot O.E? O.E says (below): “Segregation is as much a property issue…I have the right to refuse services to X,Y or Z, I have the right to discriminate…” Reply O.E says: January 20, 2013 at 13:55 Rosa’s descendants & relations from Jamaica have already answered that question on more than one occasion by using very primitive tools to inflict what is to be clearly understood as lethal intended harm upon myself. Even as an adolescent myself dwelling outside of the U.S territories the argumentative weapon carrying “civilize them Whites with brutality” Black actors have taken advantage of this bias-less Liberal condition on display here. The same that has been promulgated ever since the 60’s with its blameless Nubian sophistry and the duplicitous con artistry that seeks vilification of White men and women and to even greater extent children. This sophist moronic tradition today threatens innocent white folk for taking measures despite evidence which provides an insistence that Whites pursue the contrarian path into a quagmire of politically incorrect rhetoric and activism rather than stand up for the so called right of others who so routinely abuse those rights and tools that derive from them. Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 14:11 Nubian sophistry Do you often use that term at your meetings, O.E? “Sounds like Homer Stokes is the kind of fella who wants to cast the first stone.” ~Pappy O’Daniel (2000) O Brother, Where Art Thou? mike marriam says: January 20, 2013 at 08:28 Spot on! Segregation was a form of people control just as the attack on our 2A rights is. Elections are bought and sold. Once guns are solely possessed by the fascist what’s to stop them from bringing back segregation. We need to broaden our outreach to break the stereotypical view of 2A supporters as old white men. Reply O.E says: January 20, 2013 at 08:50 Segregation is as much a property issue as the 2nd Amendment infringement is a property issue. I own a business, I have the right to refuse X,Y or Z entrance to my property, I have the right to refuse services to X,Y or Z, I have the right to discriminate till my heart is content on matters concerning A through to W at whim. I am not the Federal Government, I have consciously self discriminated and self determined to not be membership to the Federal Government. Yet Federal Government attempts to regulate my choices and my property by over ruling my private authority. Liberals like Charlton Heston former chair of the NRA adore the energy and attention they get for running around with Communists swindling the poor out of everything they have. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 11:08 If you think you have such absolute property rights, go ahead and try refusing to pay property tax. You’ll find out how wrong you are, and who owns what. Even Rand Paul backed-of of your extreme position, because it is politically untenable, and logically indefensible. Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn’t Have Talked To Rachel Maddow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-civil-rights-rachel-maddow_n_583292.html Reply O.E says: January 20, 2013 at 12:31 Civil rights do not include assembly and squatting rights. The student protest sit in days are OVER. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 13:12 Civil rights do not include assembly From what foreign nation do you hail? “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” ~First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution Pascal says: January 20, 2013 at 09:10 What some of you are saying will not play. The anti-gun crowd will make it a public safety issue. Your fighting the wrong fight. When mothers see things like what happened in Sandy Hook many who nothing about guns or self protection especially those stay at home upper income moms who have nothing better to do but beat the doors of politicians to ask for guns to be banned. Are biggest problem is that we need to be more organized. We need to get crime victims who fought back and survived. We need those faces on TV in PSA announcements saying “I could have been a victim, I could have been a victim” ” but I fought back, I fought back” “I am am live today because I was able to defend myself and now the govt is trying to take that away from me” Emotions, that is what will win the day. This other stuff may be correct, but it does not play well except to gun owners Stuff that Ivy Mike keeps insistently posting just makes us all look like kooks. The anti-gun crowd and those who support know nothing about guns except what they hear about on TV and news, they are not well educated on the constitution and most of them know more about some reality show than real life. You need to fight with what the other side understands not what we already believe. Reply O.E says: January 20, 2013 at 09:45 Public Safety is one thing, walking naked into a burning theater smothered head to foot in vaseline is another. The public domain is a wild environment where anything can and does happen, it is up to members of the public to secure themselves as best they can with what ever means is available. Until Government begins the process of regulating the carriage of steel plates while in the public domain the public are capable of providing their own security from gunshot wounds to the torso and depending upon how vital one views their limbs the rest of the body may also be armored. This is of course largely regarded as a White Mans burden and it is expected to be endured oversea’s in theaters of war (read GWOT) rather than domestically. This is pure speculation on my part, but I believe this to be a means of controlling the likelihood of group think and regulating the potential escailation and frequency of hardening former soft ‘targets’ to a new level. Reply Accur81 says: January 20, 2013 at 09:47 Well, most of us have stopped responding about Ivy Mike. I agree with your assessment, but this fight can and should be fought at all levels. The benefits of gun ownership are factual, historical, and emotional. The biggest problem that I can see is that the left controls the media and that too much of the population are morons totally willing to be “assisted” by the government. Remeber how much damage control Romney had to do after his comments that 47% of people were on government assistance? Here is what is propose an “I survived because I was armed” narrative. That would be especially powerful with single moms and minorities. Or perhaps “I survived because I was armed, and now that is being taken from me.” That would be an excellent message to put forth to sway the “emotional” crowd. Pictures, photos, and stories of vulnerable – looking folks who survived violent encounters because they exercised their 2nd Amendement rights. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 11:13 You have zero rebuttal to my presenting the US Constitution and the complete 2A. So you may as well be quiet. Maybe the next step is that you can actually learn something. Baby steps. 😉 Reply Brent says: January 20, 2013 at 10:06 +1 Pascal Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 11:18 Stuff that Ivy Mike keeps insistently posting Stuff like: • Complete Second Amendment • Constitution • Quotes from Founding Fathers Yeah, that stuff is real problematic to Right Wing Authoritarian-Submissive bootlickers like you, just as it is problematic to Leftwing Collectivists. But hey, at least you’ve got lots of company. Reply scottlac says: January 20, 2013 at 09:19 This IS a civil rights and human rights issue. Always be sure to say it that way in every 2A discussion. Reply LinebackerU says: January 20, 2013 at 09:28 I’m just throwing this out there, but maybe “gun control” and “racial segregation” are different from each other than not equally abhorrent. Reply Greg in Allston says: January 20, 2013 at 09:31 Right on, anonymous. It’s not a Bill of Needs, it’s a Bill of Rights. Nice Photoshop by the way, that’s classic. I’m sure the Deacons for Defense and Justice would approve. Someone should try to get a copy of that photo to Chuck Hicks, Robert Hicks’ son. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 11:33 It’s not a Bill of Needs, it’s a Bill of Rights. That avoids the widely held understanding that, “people’s basic needs are considered rights.”* Basic Needs = Rights Whether or not you agree with that, most people consider such as hairsplitting between needs and rights. It’s not an effective argument to the gun-grabbers. Try something different. _______ * RIGHTS,WANTS & NEEDS http://www.unicef.ca/sites/default/files/imce_uploads/UTILITY%20NAV/TEACHERS/DOCS/GC/EngRightsKit02.pdf Reply Dyspeptic Gunsmith says: January 20, 2013 at 13:26 I need a bale of cotton at a very cheap price. So start pickin’, son. I’ll tell you when my “needs” are met. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 14:15 Does one need liberty? Check. And mate. “All people have human rights and there is a close connection between human rights, needs, and autonomy.” first sentence of: Human Rights, Needs, and Autonomy N. Hassoun Assistant Professor Carnegie Mellon University http://repository.cmu.edu/philosophy/367/ uncommon_sense says: January 20, 2013 at 09:44 I have a new response to “need” comments. Someone once filled a truck with explosives and blew up a building. Since no one needs a truck, is it okay to ban trucks because someone used one to kill several hundred people? Reply pk in AZ says: January 20, 2013 at 09:54 Along the same lines, I found this: “If you don’t have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs… then why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?” It’s about common sense, which the control nuts do not understand. I’ve said it before, this is not about “guns”, it is about “CONTROL” Reply BLAMMO says: January 20, 2013 at 10:34 My views on “need”. I don’t need a gun. I have never needed a gun. I hope I never need a gun. And, in all likelihood, I will never need a gun. However, should I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun. Therefore, I have a gun. And if the Government ever says you can’t have a gun, that’s when you’ll need a gun. Aside from that, guns are cool. Guns are fun. Have fun and be safe. Reply Pascal says: January 20, 2013 at 10:43 Mind if i use that when i teach my gun safety classes? Reply BLAMMO says: January 20, 2013 at 21:49 I haven’t copyrighted it so be my guest. Reply elnonio says: January 22, 2013 at 14:44 It was copyrighted the second you wrote it. Skyler says: January 20, 2013 at 10:47 Was it intentional to have Ms. Parks holding a communist rifle? Reply William says: January 20, 2013 at 11:32 Rifles can be COMMUNISTS? Is mine a CAPITALIST? Seriously. Calling a rifle “communist” is as loony as asserting “guns kill people”! Really. And I think Rosa would have gotten some SERIOUS respect (which was due) if she’d carried a Boris. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 11:39 communist…capitalist What’s the difference? “If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory.” ~Lenin, 1918 Reply Skyler says: January 20, 2013 at 11:49 Good grief. The rifle was designed by and for the communist movement. We don’t have any enemies that use M-16’s. It is a potent symbol of how communists gained and maintained power through much of the world. Reply Skyler says: January 20, 2013 at 11:59 My point is that if someone wanted to associate Rosa Parks efforts for freedom and civil rights with civil rights for gun ownership, a better choice of weapon would have been an American rifle, not one saddled by association with communism and terrorism. Esh325 says: January 20, 2013 at 10:49 I don’t see the connection really. This type of add would make gun owners look worst. Reply William says: January 20, 2013 at 11:34 “Ad”. Your sentence doesn’t “add” up. Reply KCK says: January 20, 2013 at 12:04 Ms Parks should have been armed with an M1 carbine not an AK. Reply Aharon says: January 20, 2013 at 12:55 In times of tyranny and rebellion an AR/AK is far more important than a specific seat on a bus. Riding around on a bus, during times of non-physical rebellion, the right for everyone to sit on a bus where they want is a valid and a socially important right. Reply WC says: January 20, 2013 at 18:07 Rosa Parks would have accomplished nothing had she boarded the bus with a gun. Her arrest would have been seen as justified by most, rather than sparking the outrage that it did. Reply Robert Farago says: January 20, 2013 at 18:12 Would apartheid have been possible if Southern Democrats hadn’t disarmed African Americans? Reply jwm says: January 20, 2013 at 18:17 True, 1 person with a gun can be spun any way the powers that be wish it. But every person with a gun? Coil up the fire hoses and put the dogs in the kennels, it’s a whole other ball game. remember WC, I have seen “Whites Only” signs on drinking fountains and restrooms and other places. I’m an OFWG that spent part of his youth in the south. It’s hard to mete out injustice against an armed population. Reply Ivy Mike says: January 20, 2013 at 19:45 Good point. And I might add that gun control was a racist way to keep blacks down. The Racist Roots of Gun Control http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html Reply O.E says: January 20, 2013 at 22:00 For a race of people that hadn’t contributed to the science of engineering or fuels I can understand why blacks would see anything that the white has ownership and mastery of desirable and unfairly used to keep the black man down. For instance, today I read a story involving black armed robber who was also a hostage taker that went on to rape one of his victims, multiple times. http://laist.com/2013/01/16/suspect_in_nordstrom_rack_robbery_r.php Obviously this simply happened because the Black man wasn’t kept down hard enough! WC says: January 20, 2013 at 22:20 Here’s some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver WC says: January 20, 2013 at 20:26 Tomorrow is a national holiday celebrating MLKjr, who chose to lead the civil rights movement with passive resistance. MLK copied Gandhi’s successful passive resistance which won India’s freedom. Guns are not always the answer. Reply jwm says: January 20, 2013 at 22:55 I much prefer peace myself, WC. But not at the price of freedom for me or mine. I will remain at peace until it’s no longer possible. And I will keep my guns in case it no longer becomes possible. Remember, both sides must want peace. Crunkleross says: January 21, 2013 at 04:31 I feel we can make some good points by pointing out that the 2A is a civil right. I also believe we open up the discussion in an unproductive way if we try to use put up examples like this Rosa Parks pic. The other side is too good at taking us into territory difficult to defend, keep it simple and to the point leave the demagoguery to the other side. Reply Write a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.