84 replies to this topic

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Ghost -   think about it for a minute.  You blame government.  Who picks the people to run the government?  Look in the mirror to see who.  If you're old like me, you might remember a political comic strip called Pogo (auth - Walt Kelly).  For whatever reasons, I remember one strip from the 1970's where Pogo made a very insightful observation.  He said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!"   It applies today for so many problems.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Some in this thread have said they would not comply with AB1014.  Think thru a couple scenarios that would result from this decision:

 

-  For some reason you are the subject of an AB1014 restraining order.  You refuse to comply and keep possession of your firearms.  One day you see some bad guy committing a crime (attacking a neighbor) and you might be able to stop it with your firearm.  Here's the rub...Let's say you take action and shoot the bad guy.  In the investigation afterward, law enforcement will discover that you've violated the AB1014 restraining order and they will probably arrest you and confiscate your firearms on the spot.  Knowing this could happen, you will have good reason not to make any effort to stop a bad guy.  You decide noworst onet to be the good guy. 

 

-  The slope gets slipperier.  Again, you decide not to comply with a restraining order and keep your firearms.  One day a bad guy breaks into your house and threatens you.  Will you stop him knowing that during the post-crime investigation law enforcement will arrest you and confiscate your firearms?  You're between a rock and a hard place.  What to do?

 

-  Here's the worst one.  You decide not to comply with AB1014.  You are no longer a law abiding citizen.  Here's what happens:

     1)  I'll make a bold assumption that you hate crime and criminals.

     2)  When you decide not to comply, you become a criminal.

     3)  In defiance of the law, you become what you hate.  This is a personal opinion, but it presents a significant personal moral dilemma that will be very difficult to reconcile.  Some may not care, but I would struggle with it.

 

- And don't tell me that the law is invalid, unjust, unlawful etc.  You don't get to decide this (as discussed in earlier posts).

 

I'd be interested in your thoughtful response to this conundrum. 

[Chris]

Hey GoG, yes we do get to decide...!   When the so called laws breach the human right to self defense, self protection, self determination, the right to protect ones own family.  Unjust laws will not be followed. Just ask a Jew in Germany in the 1930's, if you can find one left alive today.  So many of them were turned to carbon dust in the ovens.   

 

Just one of the thousands of articles on this subject.  And the sad thing is that for every article like the one below there are five articles discounting this real history, the Solan.coms, the liberal press, the anti gun progressives, the Bloomberg front groups of the world, the Soros funded groups just spam this whole arena of gun control with false articles and diversions of the truth. You know the truth, you know what happened in Germany, at least I hope you do.  Same in China with Mao, same in Russia with Stalin.  Disarm the people and you no longer have citizens, you have subjects....!  Not gonna happen here.  Chris  

 

http://www.nationalr...phen-p-halbrook

 

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil. The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo. This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack. That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues. SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released. The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty. No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills. As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris,  appreciate your response, but it really wasn't what I was looking for.   You may truly not think you're a criminal for disobeying AB1014.  But the bulk of society may think you are a criminal.  Remember, the police are sworn to enforce the law.  They don't decide which laws are just or unjust. I understand and appreciate your desire to confront a gov't you believe to be defective.  But in thinking thru all the scenarios and outcomes of that effort, it seems that none end well for the people in defiance. I was hoping to hear some approaches to my hypothetical situations that would work.  I'm truly interested in hearing any ideas.

[The Average Joe]

In all your scenarios. I act in the best interest of the safety of my neighbor and family first. I deal with the legal fallout second.

 

And frankly, I don't become what I hate. I am defending the Constitution and my rights under said document. If I am arrested, so be it. I don't protect my neighbors and family only when it is convenient for me to do so. Some things are worth taking a stand for. Our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the Declaration and each other. What honor is there in ignoring abuse of that which they paid so dearly for?

 

No, I'll let a jury decide if there is moral equivalency to a person breaking into my home with bad intent and me defending my family with an "illegally" owned weapon.

 

BTW, I am not some "gun nut." I am a father, coach, volunteer, taxpayer and (for the most part) upstanding member of my community. I would fight just as hard to protect the liberties of those I disagree with. If that makes me a criminal, there is something very wrong with those making the laws...

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Said with conviction.  Appreciated!  I agree that it's honorable to defend equally those who might not have my same points of view. 

[Chris]

Chris,  appreciate your response, but it really wasn't what I was looking for.   You may truly not think you're a criminal for disobeying AB1014.  But the bulk of society may think you are a criminal.  Remember, the police are sworn to enforce the law.  They don't decide which laws are just or unjust. I understand and appreciate your desire to confront a gov't you believe to be defective.  But in thinking thru all the scenarios and outcomes of that effort, it seems that none end well for the people in defiance. I was hoping to hear some approaches to my hypothetical situations that would work.  I'm truly interested in hearing any ideas.

Oh no, I am sure I will be labeled as a criminal and I think that half of the country would think so and the other half not.  Here's a good story for you that I remembered from a few years back.  Chicago, illegal for a person to own a handgun (back then, since changed) or to have one in their home.  This guy kept his, and it saved his life and that of his wife.  Charges were dropped.  Should never even been charged at all, unjust law.  Chris

 

http://www.foxnews.c...me-invader.html

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Did they let him keep it?

[Chris]

Oh, and some more along these lines.  I read this book about 6 months ago.  Great American history read...!  Black Folk were outlawed from having guns, especially in the South.  From the end of the civil war up until modern times.  Did they comply...?   No...!  No way....!  Many a Klansman was dropped dead on a front lawn to his great surprise.  Many times by a lever action Winchester or a well used 12 gauge was the tool.  Stores would not sell Black Folk guns or ammo for the most part.  Some stores did.  Never give up the right to defend yourself, your family, your neighbors...!   Chris

 

 

[Chris]

Did they let him keep it?

Not sure if they ever gave it back to him.  At the time Chicago had the most draconian gun laws for the law abiding citizen and any handgun was outlawed for the private citizen.  The McDonald case a year or two later in SCOTUS changed that.  Chicago still makes it hard on law abiding citizens though from what I read to purchase, own, store, and retain a handgun.  Chris

[The Average Joe]

That book looks interesting. Got lots of amazon $ and a fully charged Kindle. Now if I can only remember to buy it...lol.

[Chris]

That book looks interesting. Got lots of amazon $ and a fully charged Kindle. Now if I can only remember to buy it...lol.

Yes Joe, it is a great book.  A very good read, one of the better books I read last year.  I gave my copy away to a friend at work (he's one of my long range shooting buds) who's dad is a Black American from the South, lives out here now and is about 80 years old.  He said his dad had to put the book down several times, made him cry.  Not sure if he finished it....   This man lived it and my friend at work shared some of his dad's stories.  This book will make you very angry and sets a precedent in American history for the minority class not to give up the means to defend themselves under any circumstance. The laws were clearly targeted at Black Americans to strip them of their firearms and to leave arms in the hands of their oppressors (KKK, racist white southerners, etc) so they would be easy pickings.   They were not easy pickings in many cases when they were armed and managed to save themselves, their families, and their segregated towns from the KKK and the other racist murderers.  This book tells many individual stories of men and women fighting back to save their very lives using "illegal" guns that they refused to turn in.  Chris

[TruthSeeker]

You guys are great - best line I read "never give up your right to defend yourself"

 

Obama's speech this morning and rumors of him bypassing congress to ramrod his dictator liberal anti-gun ideals on everyone are scary.

 

I too will not turn over my guns, Eff that. I'm tired of this president misleading sheeple and blaming guns for everything and never blaming the Muslim terrorists or Mental Nut Jobs that are THE ONLY cause of every single mass killing.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hi Truthseeker.  Sorry, but don't quite agree with your view.  At every mass shooting, two things are present - a whackjob and a firearm...both contribute.  One side claims the whackjob has nothing to do with it, and the other side claims the firearm has nothing to do with it.  Both views are irrational.

 

Whenever one of these mass shootings occurs, the anti's and the pro's retreat to their ideological corners at the opposite sides of reality and point to the other side as the culprit.  And no one seems to have any solutions.  Just blame.   Pathetic.   

[Chris]

Hi Truthseeker.  Sorry, but don't quite agree with your view.  At every mass shooting, two things are present - a whackjob and a firearm...both contribute.  One side claims the whackjob has nothing to do with it, and the other side claims the firearm has nothing to do with it.  Both views are irrational.

 

Whenever one of these mass shootings occurs, the anti's and the pro's retreat to their ideological corners at the opposite sides of reality and point to the other side as the culprit.  And no one seems to have any solutions.  Just blame.   Pathetic.   

Remember, "gun deaths" include suicide by firearm in their totals.  And "Child gun death" statistics include that 16 year old male selling drugs on Chicago's south side who is also packing a Glock 19 and has used it but gets killed....  The Brady Bunch never make any distinction in their numbers.  I think we are at a little over 30K automobile crash deaths every year, down from about 40K+ in the 1980's (airbags, better seat belts, ABS, etc...).  Hospital or medical errors I think are over 100K deaths a year and some say up to 400K deaths per year.  I think way more people are killed by knives in this country every year than by long arms (rifles, shotguns), like about 5 to one ratio in favor of the knife.  Same goes for hammers and clubs, way more killings with those than long guns.  I have no restrictions on my knives and hammers at home (I confess, I have a lot of hammers and mallets) but I do have to have a bullet button on my SIG556 rifle....?  Why..?  And no 10 day "cooling off" period when I bought my last hammer (a nice USA made Eastwing sledge).   Micro printing, bio metric handguns, magazine cutoffs, smaller magazines, chamber indicators, bullet buttons, etc. do not make for a safer or more effective weapon.  Handguns are a different story than long guns because they are perfect for offense and defense, easily portable, and concealable. The statistic that I want to see is how many lives are saved every year in this country by defensive handgun usage.  This statistic is not kept or researched by government in anyway as far as I know.  If more draconian gun laws are imposed upon us I am pretty sure any drop in "gun death violence" will be happily reported by the government, CNN, ABC, NPR, MSNBC as proof that they were right all along.  What they will not report on or research in any way is the number of people killed or raped that INCREASED because they could not defend themselves because they no longer had access to firearms or ammunition.  They will be reported as a "homicide victim"  and not as murdered or raped because they were not able to defend themselves with a gun because it was confiscated by government or no longer available to them.  I am betting every year in this country guns save more lives than they take.  Another statistic that is most likely not researched by government or any progressive anti gun organization except to deny the fact that guns are used several thousand times every day in the USA to defend life and property, every day...! Chris

 

http://www.gunfacts....eturn-note-97-3

 

Guns and Crime Prevention

 

Myth: Private ownership of guns is not effective in preventing crime

GUNS AND CRIME PREVENTION - Defensive Gun Use (DGU) vs Firearm Violent Crime

 

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

 

Fact: Even the governments estimate, which has a major methodology problem, 2 estimates people defend themselves 235,700 times each year with guns. 

 

Fact: The number of times per year an American uses a firearm to deter a home invasion alone is 498,000. 

 

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

 

Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (DGU) is six times that of criminal gun use. 

 

Fact:  Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. 

 

Fact:  In most of the remaining 8% of defensive gun uses does a citizen wound his or her attacker (they fire warning shots), and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed. 

 

Fact: In one local review of firearm homicide, more than 12% were civilian legal defensive homicides. 

 

Fact: For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348) 9 with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000) 10 are preserved through defensive use.

 

Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time, not a single shot is fired. 

 

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.