Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Safrguns; TigersEye

“Maybe it would be better to simply call their bluff and see if they are capable of enforcement before we start considering that other choice you refer to.” Committing an act is no bluff. They mean to do as they say and the passage of a law clearly warns of an intent, much as the cocking of an arm and clenching of a fist is a preparation for a strike. Addressing the “before we start considering” portion of your remark it falls short in that once you observe the obvious preparation for a strike by an opponent, if you haven’t considered a response before the prepartion is observed, which, in my book is no preparation beforehand at all. Remember he adage regarding cordiality yet being prepared to kill all you meet. As you can see there is no simple in “simply” calling their bluff. Calling their bluff in this instance would be the final resistance offered in defense. Parties may jabber a great deal prior to the clenching of fists but once the first swing is thrown all bets on a peaceful solution are off.

There is no “we’ in this equation. They will enforce their edicts, tyrannically arrived at, one progressive step at a time, from one “activist” individual to the next and resistance will fall to that level. Remember, an army is composed of individuals and force is dealt to each on that basis regardless of their number or location. The ability to stand or fall is based on individual thinking and effort alone or in concert with others. Waiting for the “we” to appear next to you for assistance in maintaining that which you hold dearest to your breast reveals insincerety in your belief of its importance to you. IMHO. I’ve already hashed this out so-to-speak.

Semper Fidelis


31 posted on 04/20/2013 2:18:17 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: chulaivn66; Safrguns
Very well stated. I couldn't possibly add to that except to say that I am not, never was and will not be the aggressor. IMO "we" (ie law-abiding citizen gun owners) cannot possibly be cast, honestly, as aggressors in this push-and-shove over the supremacy and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. "We" have never been anything but defenders of that founding legal principle.

It is telling that the one means to alter that principle that a Constitutionalist patriot would have to accept if it did alter it, a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment, is the one avenue of change the gun grabbers have never considered trying.

35 posted on 04/20/2013 2:52:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: chulaivn66

I’m not sure they have a fist to clench yet.

Too many sheriffs and other officials are announcing their intention to defy enforcement orders.

Make no mistake... I have no intention of giving up my guns.
Also, I hope you don’t think I am advocating passivity.
Being passive, and not taking their bait is two different things.


39 posted on 04/20/2013 3:21:36 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson