Here's your choice: Fight or die

I predict in my lifetime I will see a second civil war.

From the viewpoint of the totalitarians, you don’t attempt to “come in waves”. You make a few examples first.

Then gauge the national response.

Sounds credible. Thanks.

And they’ll be sure that the sycophant media is everywhere they are, with the video cameras on.

You make good points in your comments. It’s was mentioned in another post about a month ago that the Media really is the weak link in this whole scenario. Start accusing them of lying and then “taking them out for it”, would cause a whole lot of soul searching and perhaps some honest news reporting.

Mind you “I” didn’t come up with this someone else did, but I did remember it and have thought about it and “Unintended Consequences” do happen.

Civil Wars are HORRIBLE and in the end the winners only win for a short time as the losers vow to always remember and to pass that remembrance on to future generations. As a case in point look to Bosnia where the Serbs and the Croats have been fighting their civil wars for almost two thousand years.

A few people on FR will comment on it, and that’ll be it.

Afraid so, chest thumping is easy, fighting is hard.

Most gun owners today will say;, "That could never happen here." Well it is happening here. We huffed and puffed after Waco, then Ruby Ridge, then watched as the congress led by snarlin Arlen covered for all of it.

If the people are not outraged enough by the TSA then they won't ever be outraged enough to stand against the coming restrictions on travel. Papers Please? Do you hear anyone complaining about having to produce papers to travel on almost any public transportation other than local?

papertyger said: "But you will note, Lexington and Concord was kicked off when the British took steps to disarm the Colonists."

As one living in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, I can assure you that Kalifornia crossed the line into tyranny by infringing the Second Amendment decades ago.

I have been "more disposed to suffer" because Kalifornia does not exist in isolation. If it did, I would have left years ago. I have also been able to make personal adjustments that keep me in compliance with the law.

I remain here because I understand what our Founders intended by writing the Second Amendment and I can envision a legal path whereby my rights can be restored.

I am nothing less than astounded by the progress which is represented by the Heller and McDonald decisions of the Supreme Court. Follow-on cases are being handled relatively well (with the exception of the foot-dragging of the Ninth Circuit).

I really don't see the House of Representatives allowing a do-over for Feinstein. She got her ten year tyranny over gun owners and it accomplished NOTHING. Now she claims that trying again will somehow make a difference.

Even if DiFi was successful in getting a law passed, the present make-up of the Supreme Court has the decisions in Miller, Heller, and McDonald as guidance.

Because so many of the lower courts have mis-applied the Miller decision, most people don't realize that the Court never even responded to the government's claim that a person had to be a member of a militia to be protected by the Second Amendment. The Court's decision simply assumed that Miller had a right to keep and bear arms without militia membership.

Also not recognized by many is that the Court DID NOT rule against Miller, who was a bootlegger whose charge of having an unlicensed short-barreled shotgun was dismissed by the District Court on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a militia, in which case the presumption would be that Miller would be entitled to possess it.

The reason that the 1934 National Firearms Act survived is because the trial ordered by the Supreme Court remand never took place. Lower courts later mis-applied the Miller decision as if it established that the Second Amendment is a "collective right". Later Supreme Courts refused to hear cases which were wrongly decided by those lower courts.

The Heller and McDonald decisions basically got things right. It's an individual right. It is a right of the people and not of the Militia. The Heller decision even expanded on Miller. By recognizing that the pre-existing right includes self-defense, those arms which are useful for self-defense, even if not useful to a Militia, are protected.

The bottom line is that Miller, Heller, and McDonald basically establish a right of the people to keep and bear M-16s with normal capacity magazines.

The Heller decision made the point that the Second Amendment does not create a necessity to balance government interest versus the right. People are upset with Roberts over Obamacare and I haven't had the stomach to research that decision. But Roberts I believe rejects the idea that various levels of "scrutiny" must be applied to enumerated rights. To me this would seem to mean that even a compelling government reason to ban "assault rifles" doesn't change the fact that the Second Amendment disallows the government that power.

papertyger said: "But you will note, Lexington and Concord was kicked off when the British took steps to disarm the Colonists."

As one living in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, I can assure you that Kalifornia crossed the line into tyranny by infringing the Second Amendment decades ago.

I have been "more disposed to suffer" because Kalifornia does not exist in isolation. If it did, I would have left years ago. I have also been able to make personal adjustments that keep me in compliance with the law.

I remain here because I understand what our Founders intended by writing the Second Amendment and I can envision a legal path whereby my rights can be restored.

I am nothing less than astounded by the progress which is represented by the Heller and McDonald decisions of the Supreme Court. Follow-on cases are being handled relatively well (with the exception of the foot-dragging of the Ninth Circuit).

I really don't see the House of Representatives allowing a do-over for Feinstein. She got her ten year tyranny over gun owners and it accomplished NOTHING. Now she claims that trying again will somehow make a difference.

Even if DiFi was successful in getting a law passed, the present make-up of the Supreme Court has the decisions in Miller, Heller, and McDonald as guidance.

Because so many of the lower courts have mis-applied the 1939 Miller decision, most people don't realize that the Court never even responded to the government's claim that a person had to be a member of a militia to be protected by the Second Amendment. The Court's decision simply assumed that Miller had a right to keep and bear arms without militia membership.

Also not recognized by many is that the Court DID NOT rule against Miller, who was a bootlegger whose charge of having an unlicensed short-barreled shotgun was dismissed by the District Court on Second Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a militia, in which case the presumption would be that Miller would be entitled to possess it.

The reason that the 1934 National Firearms Act survived is because the trial ordered by the Supreme Court remand never took place. Lower courts later mis-applied the Miller decision as if it established that the Second Amendment is a "collective right". Later Supreme Courts refused to hear cases which were wrongly decided by those lower courts.

The Heller and McDonald decisions basically got things right. It's an individual right. It is a right of the people and not of the Militia. The Heller decision even expanded on Miller. By recognizing that the pre-existing right includes self-defense, those arms which are useful for self-defense, even if not useful to a Militia, are protected.

The bottom line is that Miller, Heller, and McDonald basically establish a right of the people to keep and bear M-16s with normal capacity magazines.

The Heller decision made the point that the Second Amendment does not create a necessity to balance government interest versus the right. People are upset with Roberts over Obamacare and I haven't had the stomach to research that decision. But Roberts I believe rejects the idea that various levels of "scrutiny" must be applied to enumerated rights. To me this would seem to mean that even a compelling government reason to ban "assault rifles" doesn't change the fact that the Second Amendment disallows the government that power.