A recipe for activism against efforts at gun control

LOL - my idea is the same as Walter E. Williams’ but I’m 13 years late? Great, just great. Oh well, better late than never...

As much as the European Jews may have benefitted from gun ownership, I don’t think any remaining survivors of the Holocaust [snip] would appreciated the Star of David as choice for this symbol.

I understand the sensitivity, having worked with many and more than a few with numbers still on their arms. That being said, I chose that as a direct slap in the face of the anti-gunners, many Jewish, as a reminder of what happens when the State starts demonizing a segment of their law-abiding population.

No one ever came up to me complaining - they just averted their eyes.

Sorry, forgot to post a link to the full story:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2975195/posts?page=15#15

PING!

They are always yammering about assault rifles. I don’t think they know precisely what the term means. They appear to be confusing semi-automatics with machine guns.

I’m not sure that this bunch is actually competent enough to kill us all. After all, this is the same government whose treasury department is considering minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin to get around the debt limit.

Whatever they ultimately do will probably have us facepalming or rolling on the floor in stitches, not dying en masse.

OBAMA EATS DACHSHUNDS!

“They are always yammering about assault rifles. I don’t think they know precisely what the term means. They appear to be confusing semi-automatics with machine guns.”

Yes, that is what I was saying - they don't know how guns work. Plus, if the weapon “looks” dangerous, they call it an assault weapon no matter what the firing mechanism is inside the gun.

Very well done. Do you mind if I copy it (sans the personal info)?

And when you get shot by SS agents, lose your house, family, and everything else while you are in prison for life... is that what you want?

Do you just want to sit and take everything they throw at you with nary a word?

If so, you are passively supporting their agenda.

Do yhou want you, your friends, and 10 to 20% of the population to die in a conflict? And that number is optimistic.

FR is being activly monitored, and people are talking rebellion.

Either they( and you) are mad or they are working for the State. A rebellion will be put down, with the death of millions.

Is that what you want?

A massive campaign to inform the public about the actual reason we were granted our Second Amendment right would be an obvious start. It's an extremely neglected piece of information that groups could have fought easily by just mentioning the facts on a regular basis.

I have recently found that issues such as hunting and self defense against criminals are believed to be the reason we were granted our Second Amendment right by an alarming number of people, including many intelligent gun owners who support the right. I was shocked to just recently start realizing this fact.

The true meaning behind this right instantly defeats most of the major unconstitutional arguments used to intentionally bypass our Constitution. It also shows that we are already having unconstitutional restrictions placed on us that we need to free ourselves of. A massive campaign by all second amendment groups to inform the public about why this right exist should be a priority. Those in the public who are defending this right also need to make a point of explaining it's true meaning every time they speak on the issue.

It's ridiculous we allowed so much disinformation to be spread in what was clearly an intentional strategy by those on the left looking to bypass the Constitution by distorting the reasoning behind it.

If there is so much fear of being accused of inciting violence anytime there is an act against the government by an individual, then we have to stop cowering in the face of frivolous threats. Of course the left will make those kinds of ridiculous accusations in an attempt to destroy the individual and their cause, but if you can't mention the purpose of our Constitutional right to bear arms on a regular basis without that fear then the entire movement is too fragile to survive.

Allowing this mass disinformation campaign is a huge failure on the part of Second Amendment advocates, and the most influential people we have defending the issue don't seem like they will change their approach. I would like a politician to say gun control is not only unconstitutional, but then explain how the people trying to take away the right are in fact the same people the right was meant to give us a defense against.

Mark Levin: The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population to overthrow a tyrannical government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3pipZMUyDE

A massive campaign to inform the public about the actual reason we were granted our Second Amendment right would be an obvious start. It's an extremely neglected piece of information that groups could have fought easily by just mentioning the facts on a regular basis.

I have recently found that issues such as hunting and self defense against criminals are believed to be the reason we were granted our Second Amendment right by an alarming number of people, including many intelligent gun owners who support the right. I was shocked to just recently start realizing this fact.

The true meaning behind this right instantly defeats most of the major unconstitutional arguments used to intentionally bypass our Constitution. It also shows that we are already having unconstitutional restrictions placed on us that we need to free ourselves of. A massive campaign by all second amendment groups to inform the public about why this right exist should be a priority. Those in the public who are defending this right also need to make a point of explaining it's true meaning every time they speak on the issue.

It's ridiculous we allowed so much disinformation to be spread in what was clearly an intentional strategy by those on the left looking to bypass the Constitution by distorting the reasoning behind it.

If there is so much fear of being accused of inciting violence anytime there is an act against the government by an individual, then we have to stop cowering in the face of frivolous threats. Of course the left will make those kinds of ridiculous accusations in an attempt to destroy the individual and their cause, but if you can't mention the purpose of our Constitutional right to bear arms on a regular basis without that fear then the entire movement is too fragile to survive.

Allowing this mass disinformation campaign is a huge failure on the part of Second Amendment advocates, and the most influential people we have defending the issue don't seem like they will change their approach. I would like a politician to say gun control is not only unconstitutional, but then explain how the people trying to take away the right are in fact the same people the right was meant to give us a defense against.

Mark Levin: The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population to overthrow a tyrannical government

http://www#youtube#com/watch?v=t3pipZMUyDE

A massive campaign to inform the public about the actual reason we were granted our Second Amendment right would be an obvious start. It's an extremely neglected piece of information that groups could have fought easily by just mentioning the facts on a regular basis.

I have recently found that issues such as hunting and self defense against criminals are believed to be the reason we were granted our Second Amendment right by an alarming number of people, including many intelligent gun owners who support the right. I was shocked to just recently start realizing this fact.

The true meaning behind this right instantly defeats most of the major unconstitutional arguments used to intentionally bypass our Constitution. It also shows that we are already having unconstitutional restrictions placed on us that we need to free ourselves of. A massive campaign by all second amendment groups to inform the public about why this right exist should be a priority. Those in the public who are defending this right also need to make a point of explaining it's true meaning every time they speak on the issue.

It's ridiculous we allowed so much disinformation to be spread in what was clearly an intentional strategy by those on the left looking to bypass the Constitution by distorting the reasoning behind it.

If there is so much fear of being accused of inciting violence anytime there is an act against the government by an individual, then we have to stop cowering in the face of frivolous threats. Of course the left will make those kinds of ridiculous accusations in an attempt to destroy the individual and their cause, but if you can't mention the purpose of our Constitutional right to bear arms on a regular basis without that fear then the entire movement is too fragile to survive.

Allowing this mass disinformation campaign is a huge failure on the part of Second Amendment advocates, and the most influential people we have defending the issue don't seem like they will change their approach. I would like a politician to say gun control is not only unconstitutional, but then explain how the people trying to take away the right are in fact the same people the right was meant to give us a defense against.

Mark Levin: The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population to overthrow a tyrannical government

http://www#youtube#com/watch?v=t3pipZMUyDE

A massive campaign to inform the public about the actual reason we were granted our Second Amendment right would be an obvious start. It's an extremely neglected piece of information that groups could have fought easily by just mentioning the facts on a regular basis.

I have recently found that issues such as hunting and self defense against criminals are believed to be the reason we were granted our Second Amendment right by an alarming number of people, including many intelligent gun owners who support the right. I was shocked to just recently start realizing this fact.

The true meaning behind this right instantly defeats most of the major unconstitutional arguments used to intentionally bypass our Constitution. It also shows that we are already having unconstitutional restrictions placed on us that we need to free ourselves of. A massive campaign by all second amendment groups to inform the public about why this right exist should be a priority. Those in the public who are defending this right also need to make a point of explaining it's true meaning every time they speak on the issue.

It's ridiculous we allowed so much disinformation to be spread in what was clearly an intentional strategy by those on the left looking to bypass the Constitution by distorting the reasoning behind it.

If there is so much fear of being accused of inciting violence anytime there is an act against the government by an individual, then we have to stop cowering in the face of frivolous threats. Of course the left will make those kinds of ridiculous accusations in an attempt to destroy the individual and their cause, but if you can't mention the purpose of our Constitutional right to bear arms on a regular basis without that fear then the entire movement is too fragile to survive.

Allowing this mass disinformation campaign is a huge failure on the part of Second Amendment advocates, and the most influential people we have defending the issue don't seem like they will change their approach. I would like a politician to say gun control is not only unconstitutional, but then explain how the people trying to take away the right are in fact the same people the right was meant to give us a defense against.

Mark Levin: The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population to overthrow a tyrannical government

http://www#youtube#com/watch?v=t3pipZMUyDE

Instead of Woodstock, Gunstock.

If several million actually appeared shouldering arms in DC, what could they do?

They couldn’t arrest everybody. If they called in the National Guard, half of them would have the flu. If they involved the military, everybody with a squirrel rifle would get into it, and it’s Ragnarok for the whole enchilada right in the capital.

The writer is right. We can calmly and rationally call for the nonsensical Gun Control proposals to be squashed (and that's any further infringement, registration, all of it, imho that doesn't loosen laws to permit people to defend themselves).

Calm is good.

Not one of the proposed laws would have prevented the shootings at Sandy hook. The guy was unopposed, and could have committed his crimes with a flintlock musket.

If they don't listen, we can get 'excited' later.

The only reason for the Right of the people to keep and bear arms to remain uninfringed was to guarantee them sufficient power to keep their freedom (the security of a free state) if either the Federal or State armies got out of line and tried to impose tyranny.

It's in the Federalist Papers in the discussion of whether there should even be a standing Federal Army (Note, in the parlance of the day, Militia was defined as "The Army, in its entirety").

Without contortion, A well controlled Army being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Without those arms, anyone who controlled the Army could ride roughshod over the populace without opposition.

We're still there, only we've been deceived about the fundamental purpose and intent to the degree most of us do not have real military grade arms, just expensive imitations.