FReeper Patriots, your Contributions make all the difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!
Posted on 01/27/2013 3:34:14 PM PST by neverdem
A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It's not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let's discuss what's "sensible."
For much of the US' history, we had virtually no gun-control laws (for white people). But then came Prohibition, gangsters, and Tommy guns, and people wanted to be sensible. So we ended up with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons. Al Capone was unimpressed.
But there still was crime, and we had to be sensible. Thus were spawned...
--snip--
Conservatives have a history of playing defense - and compromising their way to culture-war defeat and tyranny. Liberals will come to the bargaining table demanding some change and conservatives, being reasonable, will give the liberals a percentage of what they want. The problem? The liberals will come back again and again, demanding more and more, and the conservatives will continually yield more ground. And, ultimately, after enough time, the whole loaf will have been relinquished.
So here's my proposal: I want the total number of gun laws reduced from 22,000 to 5,000 (it's a good start, anyway). If the opposition finds this unpalatable, however, I'm willing to be sensible and reasonable and accept a reduction to 10,000. Don't ever say I'm not amenable to compromise.
While I have far more ammunition in my magical mystery magazine, word control dictates that I hold further fire (for now) and cede the floor to Mr. Joshpe. Suffice it to say, though, that his proposals are of the left and should be left behind. They reflect large-caliber misunderstandings fed with high-capacity emotionalism which cycle out fully automatic knee-jerk reactions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Bill of Rights were not granted by Government but by God. They (including the 2nd Amendment) are not debatable.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -Hubert H. Humphrey,bitter clinger,Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6
from back when some Dems made sense.
So a friend told me the other day that he was going to ask some buds to start training with him. Rifle use, tactics, targets, etc. So I said, “Oh, you’re starting a militia.” NO! NO! JUST getting together, no politics, practicing with rifles, etc.... “Yeah, I know... a militia.”
Until we recapture the terms, the law, and our history, we are LOST.
Yes, yes, and yes. Stop counter-offering with a subset of what the libs want.
Right, because Feinstein could not explain WHY government officials are exempt from her ban list.
If it is as stated their purpose is to ‘proctect the children’.
The left and the MSM (same thing) have succeeded in making militia a dirty word.
Want a counter-offensive? Full court press on overturning 922(o), NFA, GCA ‘68, and full elimination of any “me but not thee” exemptions.
Until we regain control of our children’s education we will remain on the defensive. The entire point of government schooling is infatilism and control.
Which is why we have a rising generation of Godless children. They’re taught by the Godless. Who needs God when you’ve got the state for your daddy.
Your comments remind me of Francis M. Mitchell, a Chicago grocer. After the Chicago Fire he patrolled the streets with the best weapon available to the US Army soldier - .44 caliber rifle. He wasn’t trained or licensed. He owned it and he walked his neigborhood. Protecting it without be asked, questioned or stopped.
That was back when we had a clear view of right and wrong.
Good point.
To the Left, gun ownership is an abstraction.
When it’s real - armed cops, neighbors on patrol in a crisis - they’re appreciative. Then the moment reality doesn’t demand gun ownership, it’s an abstraction again and demonization resumes. Hence the “for we, but not thee” BS of Feinstein et al.
Hence the importance of open carry. Concealed, it’s just an abstraction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.