Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

[ArmyJerry]

You fkrs are scaring me.

 

[MosesTheTank]

Mosesthetank--I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with your post #313. I am but a simple knuckledragging redneck working with many over-educated and under-worked college graduates. Many of them (not the majority, but a significant number nonetheless) seem to lack that increasingly uncommon asset--common sense. He may be mental genius but has no idea how to go about translating his intellect into actual physical results in a real working atmosphere.

[MENTION=29556]mtrmn[/MENTION]. Thanks for the compliment. That post was straight from the heart. Maggots assessment just below your post is spot on. I think you are probably selling yourself a little bit short and in the context of this thread I think it's important to understand how because it's up to our community to educate the unwashed, which is not an easy thing. So I'm going to beat it to death.

It is my experience that the academics who are really worth something are those who were successful in the real world, or industry, before teaching. And here's why... my dad was a welder and a scuba diver, both of which involve compressed gases in a variety of conditions. If you get things wrong bad things can happen. Ask a welder what happens when an acetylene tank falls over and the cap gets knocked off, or talk to a diver about nitrox. In college chemistry and physics classes I learned a lot about the behavior of gases. What surprised me about my dad was what he understood conceptually without ever having sat through a college class of any kind. He may not have had all the math and the text book language of science be he could explain in more plain terms what was happening to gases under different conditions. He had experience. He had spent decades both thinking about and actually experiencing what happens when temperature, altitude, and pressures changed. I'll come back to the math part.

There is something in chemistry called colligative properties. There is no point is getting academic in explaining in scientific terms because anyone who has spent time in the kitchen understands them. Boiling Point Elevation - when you add things to water the water takes a little longer to boil because the boiling point went up. Freezing Point Depression - when you add things to water (think salt or alcohol) it takes longer to freeze because the freezing point just went down. A winter road crew in Minnesota understands this second one. Chef Boyardee might not be able to calculate all the specifics but the concept is clear because they have experienced it thousands of times. I would bet $20 that either a lack of such experience or my next point is what is going on with the "mental genius" you work with.

Back to the math. One of the more jolting moments in physics was when studying the most basic of concepts, projectile motion. Almost any physics problem can be handled with math, even by someone who has no practical understanding at all. This is what I came to call the Road Runner problem. Long story short: 2 kids argued a concept in class, one being much better at the math part, the other having a better understanding of how shit actually flies through the air. That argument changed how the professor gave tests because something was obviously terribly wrong. At the end of each test he showed a movie clip and we had to explain what was going on without a formula or numbers, but by drawing it out. The very first clip was of Wiley Coyote chasing the Road Runner. When the Road Runner goes off a cliff he goes straight out, then straight down. I think most any 4th grader who has thrown a baseball could call bullshit on that one. That is unless you have come to believe so strongly in your academic tool kit that you have become inoculated to the real world around you. This a common condition amongst people who want to do everything they can to separate themselves from the plebeian masses, and one easy way to do that is to use academic tools (math in the sciences and big words in the liberal arts). I do not want to diminish the skills that I worked so many years to build, physics and math are the king and queen of the sciences, no doubt. Of course engineers and scientists need to calculate much more complex equations in a very precise way to create the planes, trains, automobiles, and next generation of antibiotics that we all need. But what is the real basis of science? Observation. And observing over, and over, and over again. When I had a professor explain a concept by lending a story about what happened when they were on the job in this situation or that, their 10 minute story was worth (at least to me) maybe a few hours of book time. For most of us what that really means is experience.

So what about this second amendment thing. I have argued it with countless people who were much more clever than myself, and some of them essentially argued for a living. Some of them absolute experts in constitutional law and all matters related. Of all of those people I cannot think of a single one who had any direct experience with a firearm. How about that, arguing a concept where both parties have no common understanding at all about what the object in question even is. How could the conversation move on to the more important point of what that object means and represents? I don't think you can. This is the point Graham was making. The conversation usually degrades to dogmatic boxing or arguing for the sake of intellectual masturbation. The video of the California State Senator and his 30 round magazine clip, 30 rounds/second ghost gun is a case in point. He wants to ban something that may or may not even exist. How fucked up is that?

It is not a stretch to say that just about every member on this forum has more knowledge and experience with firearms than anyone one of those folks I am carrying on about. Even with the incredibly wide skill and knowledge gap on the Hide (and I am not far from the bottom of that spectrum) we are, for the most part, relative experts. So before the next argument with the unwashed about the 2nd amendment gets all sideways we should enjoy that moment for the opportunity to educate from the vantage point of experience. It may turn out that more than one conversation never gets off the ground because you can't even agree what it is that you're talking about. That is unfortunate.

And moving on to all those documents (Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Federalist Papers...) and what they mean. The value of these documents are in their ideas. Those ideas caused a lot of indigestion for King George III. And those ideas were put forth to address very real world problems that the framers had very real experience with. The guns of our forefathers certainly caused even more indigestion for King George. But if it were only guys with guns running around colonial America like beasts in the forest and not coalesced by those ideas and ideals then I think we would have a parliament rather than a congress (dysfunctional though it may be). And without the means to an end, the ideas would exist only in history and philosophy books and we would hear about them from people who wanted nothing more than to tell us how smart they are and where they went to school. Firearms are but one physical manifestation of the idea of democracy. If democracy is not something to be experienced and enjoyed (for better or worse) then it is nothing more than a theoretical equation.

The argument for not just the the 2nd Amendment but the entire constitution needs to complete the circle from the ideas from which this country is made to the flesh and blood from which this country is made. What is going on in CT hits on the 7th amendment as well. And it doesn't stop there. I enjoy coffee and I enjoy talk, but I generally hate coffee house talk because it rarely makes the link between the freedom to sit and yak with the whomever, wherever, and about whatever we want and what it took, and still takes, to maintain those freedoms. At some point some of us are going to have to trade in our coffee mug for a canteen, and then shit gets real.

You may talk o’ gin and beer
When you’re quartered safe out ’ere,
An’ you’re sent to penny-fights an’ Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water

From Gunga Din - Rudyard Kipling

 

[mtrmn]

Although some of us may argue amongst ourselves, once this scenario actually raises its ugly head it will serve to unite us against tyranny and evil in general. When it's us against them it will be an honor to resist side by side with folks like those found here. I can only hope and pray there are enough Americans left who share these values with the level of passion it takes to make shit happen when the time comes.

 

[Maggot]

With out copying your long a beautifully written text, Moses, I have one major comment that I think sums up a lot of it, and it is tied in with another current thread here, the one on "how did you learn "ballistics?"

I see a lot of guys who have every conceivable gadget, and can work the math forwards and backwards, for long range shooting. I was never good at math, had to have tutors just to get through college algebra with intro to calc. I think its beautiful how it works and what you can do with it but it I tend to be numerically dyslexic. So I just shoot. Ive learned from watching innumerable pieces of lead fly down range what happens in a full cross wind, or on a hot day, or cold day, or shooting down or up hill. Im sure many of you professionals like Frank can take the gadgets and do a much more refined job, but my observational learning gets me on paper. As you stated, all science begins with 'observations'.

Unfortunately, there is one fundamental principle that many learn to use in science but never apply to personal relations, be they individual, corporate, or political.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." It can also be stated "You reap what you sow." I like to garden and Ive never planted a kernel of corn and had a pumpkin come up. Even on the street the brothers had a saying, "What goes around comes around." In philosophy class I wrote a paper about this idea combining all three, and called it "The principle of retributive actions." I honestly think the prof was jealous. Until we learn to apply this simple but absolutely fundamental concept across the board, that what ever you do comes back at you like ripples in a pond, we are going to continue to have problems.

 

[Veer_G]

Wait a minute... Graham wants to have Jerry's kids....?

Hhahahahaa! Funny shit!

Great thread by the way. Definitely food for thought.

Nah. Graham is one of Jerry's kids!

 

[RHunter]

So what about this second amendment thing. I have argued it with countless people who were much more clever than myself, and some of them essentially argued for a living. Some of them absolute experts in constitutional law and all matters related. Of all of those people I cannot think of a single one who had any direct experience with a firearm. How about that, arguing a concept where both parties have no common understanding at all about what the object in question even is. How could the conversation move on to the more important point of what that object means and represents? I don't think you can. This is the point Graham was making. The conversation usually degrades to dogmatic boxing or arguing for the sake of intellectual masturbation. The video of the California State Senator and his 30 round magazine clip, 30 rounds/second ghost gun is a case in point. He wants to ban something that may or may not even exist. How fucked up is that?

I find a lot of value in your posts but the biggest point you should be making but only lightly address is this: (and no, I do not agree this was the point Graham was making)

These ignorant legislators, the ones that know nothing about the objects of their legislation, could care less about the objects and the second amendment because for them it is not about protecting the public, it is not about the second amendment, it is about control.

We can teach them that guns are not bad, that law abiding people are not a threat to public safety, that guns reduce violent crime, but that does not relate to what they want to accomplish.

They want the guns out of the hands of the people that would use them against THEM, not a class full of kids, not a wall-mart full of people, the law makers themselves.

Criminals are not going to try to overthrow a tyrannical government. Good honest people that care about this country will. WE are the threat they want to mitigate. Everything in their process is just a smoke screen to be able to disarm us to serve a bigger agenda. They use their reasoning to sway public opinion, the opinions of other people who do not understand but ultimately buy the lie they are selling. Remember "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" "It was a group of protestors that killed our ambassador and 3 seals in Benghazi".... It 's all a bunch of trumped up lies to get the ignorant among us to go along with their Ideological agenda. They thrive on our ignorance.

If you don't believe that then you might want to stop drinking their kool-aide and start digging a little deeper into their actual Ideology. Read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. That book was written by Satan himself.

So educating them is pointless. To teach the importance of the second amendment to anyone who does not understand the concept of tyranny is pointless. They will just look at you and think you are some tin hat wearing alien from Mars.

I have traveled the world and I have seen tyranny first hand. Most "educated" people have never left the US for anything other than a cruise. Their only exposure to it is on the six o'clock news. THEY DON'T GET IT. And try as you may, you will never be able to show them the truth let alone get them to believe it.

Being a patriot is a core principle. It is a value, and it may as well be a genetic disposition in those that really understand how this country was founded and the true value of everything in the Federalist papers and Constitution. It is a set of beliefs that are worth dieing for. That is why Patriots are of particular concern to those that want control. They know we will not go along to get along and that is the biggest domestic threat they face to their Ideology.

Being a gun owner does not make you a Patriot. If you are willing to register your guns or turn them in, you are not a Patriot. You are nothing more than a gun owner. If you believe with all your heart that the system of governance our founders put in place is the best contract of freedom the world has ever seen and you are willing to die for that freedom then you are a Patriot that owns guns and you will use those guns in defense of that contract.

 

[Petrov]

If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.

 

[RHunter]

If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.

It is pretty sad that people like me are more concerned about protecting your rights than you are. Obviously you were not born here.

 

[Petrov]

It is pretty sad that people like me are more concerned about protecting your rights than you are. Obviously you were not born here.

No I wasnt born here, that was some humor injected into bad situation because speaking my mind in this case would be counterproductive and against the forum rules, but I am probably on the same page with you on this issue.

 

[RHunter]

Sorry, sometimes it is a little hard to see the humor. I get it now.

For those of you that are not familiar with Alinsky's work, here are his basic rules. If you read them and look at how they coincide with what is going on in our current political environment you will see the correlation.

Also, keep in mind that Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer and attended the University of Chicago. Can you think of another Chicago community organizer who also taught at the University of Chicago? I'll give you a clue, it's the President.

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

I am not posting this to deviate from the subject of the thread, I am posting it to validate some of the arguments that are being made on it. I do hope this is not taking it too far out of the box, I do wish to only educate so those that read this have a better understanding of the tactics being used to take away some of our constitutional rights. If you understand the tactics, you can understand better how to navigate to the solution.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

To paraphrase a humorous TV Advertisement, "Tyranny, we has it...".

I call this humor...

And in response to the OP's question, I hope they do. It's precisely the confrontation they've been pushing for all along.

All I can say in response to such an order is to be careful what you push for, you may get it.

They thrive on our ignorance.

Actually, I think it's their own ignorance they thrive upon best.

Can you think of another Chicago community organizer who also taught at the University of Chicago?

Hint, the subject he taught was Constitutional Law.

Nope, I didn't see that coming, either...

Talks the talk, but...; but I could understand a Prof discounting contrary opinion on their chosen subject.

 

[Maggot]

If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.

Im afraid that might require a double dose of eye bleach

 

[Maggot]

Sorry, sometimes it is a little hard to see the humor. I get it now.

For those of you that are not familiar with Alinsky's work, here are his basic rules. If you read them and look at how they coincide with what is going on in our current political environment you will see the correlation.

Also, keep in mind that Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer and attended the University of Chicago. Can you think of another Chicago community organizer who also taught at the University of Chicago? I'll give you a clue, it's the President.

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.


I am not posting this to deviate from the subject of the thread, I am posting it to validate some of the arguments that are being made on it. I do hope this is not taking it too far out of the box, I do wish to only educate so those that read this have a better understanding of the tactics being used to take away some of our constitutional rights. If you understand the tactics, you can understand better how to navigate to the solution.

Here's another, simpler and more direct.

"If your going to tell a lie tell a big one. It's harder to pin down." (paraphrased)

Adolf Hitler

 

[Graham]

If we are to talk about the politics of political action, and understand it's practical common-sense application, Harry Frankfurt reminds that bullshit is far more threatening, and politically evil, than lying, because the bullshiter does not reject the authority of the truth as the liar does.

 

[High Binder]

If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.

LOL. At least you'll be dressed for the part properly. They'll see your gimp suit and know right away that you're ripe for your ass fucking by the man.

 

[longshooter]

The lie is the originator of the world's problems.

 

[RHunter]

bullshit

I'd like to hear your definition of bullshit

 

[Graham]

Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

I'd like to hear your definition of bullshit

Not mine, Frankfurt's:

The refusal to speak with (due) regard to the truth.

Others expanded on his definition to give examples such as: Slogans; cliches; and jargon.

I would add: What lawyers call 'terms of art'.

 

[MosesTheTank]

[MENTION=89931]RHunter[/MENTION], I believe every word of what I wrote had to do with the 2nd Amendment because I believe the assault is on the constitution. The 1st amendment is every bit as inconvenient. I do not believe for a moment that it is a camp of pro-gunners versus a camp of anti-gunners. I believe it is multiple camps with opposing philosophies. As for politicians I agree with you 100% on their motives. Academia is an unfriendly place for the 2nd Amendment, albeit for slightly different reasons. I believe they combine to press forward with a philosophy that is small minded and, eventually, doomed.

I am not sure we are in agreement on how we go from here to there. I do not think it is a step from a desire for tyranny, to wiping out the 2nd Amendment to armed confrontation. I believe there are many intervening steps. Alinsky's outline is a sort of road map to the many fronts under assault. Speech, private property, taxation, and of course firearms are all the objects of focus for a change in an effort to effect a state of control that is something opposite what most of us would call liberty. The efforts of anti-gun politicians are to marginalize gun owners, the efforts of academia are to give the impression that we are a mass of mouth breathing troglodytes. We suffer it constantly and I feel sure that most everyone here has some personal story to validate this for themselves (see Rule 12 above, the the constitution is not made out to be a moronic document, it just needs to be updated. The framers were not stupid, they just lived in another place and time. But you and I, we'll we're just hapless idiots). How do you control the message? Media. It is axiomatic that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and look at the current efforts to set this in motion. Is the power to tax for the purpose of destruction really what the founding fathers had in mind? Of course not. But the fact that such an action is openly debated represents a sea change in the philosophy of much of our government.

Politicians have the power they have because they were voted in by people who largely have no opinion of their own on many of these particular matters because they don't see it as necessary to their lives. Because politics is a media event people tend to go with the shiniest and most wrinkle free candidate and wind up taking on some of their opinions. This is the audience for explaining things to. Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. Should things come to a head it is this population that will be the most traumatized as they will flounder for a way to make sense of it.

To the OPs question, I certainly hope not. Not just because it's wrong, but because the consequences may be horrific. I do not want to see this attack on our constitution through to some spectacular doom, although I do want it righted. The reason for this is because I know very well what middle America is capable of, and the thought of its wrath being brought to bear within the borders of this country scares the bejeesus out of me. I know that pretty much no one is going anywhere. Sure, some people may go to Canada, or Belize or wherever, but the rest of us including me are staying put no matter how things go. I believe we are now at one of those intervening stages where we may be leaning towards confrontation, but we are not there yet. Even if it seems inevitable it is not a reason not to try to stem it.

 

[Maggot]

I would add: What lawyers call 'terms of art'.

Chaching

 

[Maggot]

[MENTION=89931]RHunter[/MENTION],

Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. QUOTE]

The crux of our problem.

 

[Bigwheels]

As a less learned man that some here I am curious. I have not actually read Saul Alinsky's book, but have read, & watched many reports on its contents, & meanings. Also for several years watching news reports from divergent points of view on these two sides of the spectrum, & their tactics, & goals. I have come to the conclusion that the Progressives, the Buill Aers, & Bernadine Dorn's of the world using the playbook written by Alinsky are by definition cheaters. They are not here to fight "the good fight", but rather to cheat, & win at any cost. They ascribe to the notion that if millions must die to bring about their vision of a utopian society then so be it. The Weather Underground infiltrator told of listening to Bill Aers saying that necessarily thousands would need to be rounded up, & placed in detention camps for "disposal, or re education" to succeed in creating his socialist society. I tend to view these people as more akin to the Taliban insurgents. Most have taken off their radical "hippie" persona to create a more "civilized" appearance, & then began to infiltrate the schools, & political offices slowly over the decades to bring about the change they are working for. They work behind the scenes to instigate the useful idiots to badger, & harass their opposition while themselves staying away with plausible deniability of the consequences.
While on the other side the, I'll just call them, constitutionalists are mostly just, compassionate, & lawful men who despise the underhanded tactics used by the progressives, & want to "fight the good fight". They do not attack the messenger, but instead try to counter the message with well thought counter messages in an attempt to convince the center that their argument is better. Their vision more righteous than the progressives. But in so doing they are constantly on the defensive. Fighting battles not of their choosing. Allowing the progressives to push ahead slowly with their agenda. I believe it was Charles Krauthammer who said "the Republicans are playing chess, while the Democrats are playing hockey".
This basic concept is, I think, why we do not have a President Romney today. He did not stoop to the level of his opponents in the campaign constantly ceding ground to the progressives all out assault on his character, & not his message. He didn't take offence to the condescending remarks of his opponent in the debates. I think he felt that it would be beneath him as a just, & lawful man. We all, I feel are guilty of this same rational process. We are constantly trying to defend our credibility against the attacks leveled against us by the progressives because they do not attack our message with a well thought counter, but instead attack us personally in an attempt to discredit us, thereby also discrediting our message. They try to convince the masses that we are all the dumb, unwashed "bitter clingers" that are standing in the way of societies ascension to perfection.
How then do we as just, lawful men counter the oppositions tactics without lowering ourselves to using the same?
I do hope that our nation will never see another civil war, or ruby Ridge, or Waco but I feel that if we as the just, lawful men of this nation don't figure out an answer to that question we will be doomed to see one in our lifetime, or perhaps our children's.

I also want to thank Low Light for his permissiveness of allowing this topic to continue. Perhaps against his better judgment.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

This I agree with wholeheartedly. It is behind my reasoning that the time for talk is irreversibly past.

Any appearances of their engaging Constitutionalists in a dialogue is deceit. The purpose this serves is to distract and misdirect, as they do not engage in good faith.

I have said before that we fail by joining with them in their game.

There are few ways of dealing successfully with snakes intent on their prey, and none of those ways is polite. You can't persuade a snake.

I think of the such dialogues as being a matter of devils and spoons.

Greg

 

[RHunter]

Politicians have the power they have because they were voted in by people who largely have no opinion of their own on many of these particular matters because they don't see it as necessary to their lives. Because politics is a media event people tend to go with the shiniest and most wrinkle free candidate and wind up taking on some of their opinions. This is the audience for explaining things to. Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. Should things come to a head it is this population that will be the most traumatized as they will flounder for a way to make sense of it.

As I said before, they thrive out of our (average citizens) ignorance.

I'll just call them, constitutionalists are mostly just, compassionate, & lawful men who despise the underhanded tactics used by the progressives, & want to "fight the good fight". They do not attack the messenger, but instead try to counter the message with well thought counter messages in an attempt to convince the center that their argument is better. Their vision more righteous than the progressives. But in so doing they are constantly on the defensive. Fighting battles not of their choosing. Allowing the progressives to push ahead slowly with their agenda.

I get your point here but I subscribe to the belief that Both "parties" really do want the same thing, more control. Even when Bush was president we saw a lot of constitutional abuse. Albeit from a different angle.

I think constitutionalists elected number less than 10 and it is pretty obvious who they are. Just look for the most hated in Washington by their peers and you found yourself a constitutionalist.

I am pretty well versed on all the things that can be done to right the ship but I don't see any but one that is viable. We all heard the term "too big to fail" well I would like to introduce the term "too big to fix" and I do think our founders did have the foresight to see this coming. This is one of the things Jefferson said that rings my bell.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

I think this next election will be a very crucial one. I think it will be one where we can take the temperature of discontent. Perhaps we will see some good men elected and turn the tide, even if it is ever so slight.

But I am not very optimistic, when I look at the results we had in Florida between Jolly and Sink, Jolly only won by about 3000 votes. It was not a landslide of discontent that put him over the finish line. We are dealing with a large entitlement society that will vote for their handout regardless of what that ultimately will cost them in the end. And those votes give those in charge a mandate to continue their push for control.

At some point, the bill for all of that handing out and excessive spending is going to come due and there will be nothing to pay anyone. I think that is going to be the day the reset button get hit because then the "constitutionalists" have the excuse to gain public support (using Alinsky's own rules) to rid this country of the crap that put us in this situation. I do not believe that day is that far off. I believe we will see it by the end of the decade.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

The thing that would worry me, is a call for a Continental Congress, and getting it with present states/fed leadership

 

[RHunter]

The Continental Congress was the form of leadership we had before the Constitution so I am kinda missing your point.

Are you meaning states would send state legislators in the place our our Congressmen and Senators?

Well let me clarify that, the Continental Congress came together to primarily communicate colony positions, not lead. Each Colony had its own governance. It was more a meeting of the minds and what led to an unanimous decision to declare Independence, create a Continental Army, and acted as a de facto government in the absence of a national one.

 

[Bigwheels]

I think he may have been referring to the constitutional convention.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I believe there is still a provision for a Con-Con to be called for, but 2/3 or 3/4 (cant recall) of the states have to agree to it. Been a while since I studied on the requirements, but I do recall there is a provision in the present COTUS for it. The ramifications/out come of same, can nullify the present COTUS.


ADD,...

Article V, the amendment article, describes two processes, one of which has been used 27 times and the other of which has been used not at all. In the first process, two-thirds of each house of Congress refer a proposed amendment to the states, and that provision becomes part of the Constitution once three-fourths of the states have ratified it. In the second process, two-thirds of states may call for an amendment convention to take the place of Congress in proposing an amendment to the states, and that proposal becomes part of the Constitution as soon as three-fourths of the states have ratified it. The second process was included in the Constitution at George Mason’s insistence to deal with situations in which Congress could not be expected to initiate the amendment process because Congress itself was all or part of the problem.

 

[RHunter]

I think a constitutional convention would be a good thing. We could get term limits as an amendment to the constitution.

That, in of itself, would be a big help in fixing a lot of problems.

I also think the states could use it to pull a lot of power out of Washington and that would also be a very good thing.

 

[Bigwheels]

I used to think that as well. However I found out that once the Con-Con begins there is NO Constitution until it is finished. And the Constitution that is produced may not even resemble the one we had. Imagine how bad it could become with Cal, & NY rep's involved.

 

[RHunter]

I used to think that as well. However I found out that once the Con-Con begins there is NO Constitution until it is finished. And the Constitution that is produced may not even resemble the one we had. Imagine how bad it could become with Cal, & NY rep's involved.

That is not true, the Con-Con as you put it is only to propose amendments. The states would still have to take those proposals back to their legislators and vote to ratify them.

 

[Maggot]

I believe there is still a provision for a Con-Con to be called for, but 2/3 or 3/4 (cant recall) of the states have to agree to it. Been a while since I studied on the requirements, but I do recall there is a provision in the present COTUS for it. The ramifications/out come of same, can nullify the present COTUS.




ADD,...

Article V, the amendment article, describes two processes, one of which has been used 27 times and the other of which has been used not at all. In the first process, two-thirds of each house of Congress refer a proposed amendment to the states, and that provision becomes part of the Constitution once three-fourths of the states have ratified it. In the second process, two-thirds of states may call for an amendment convention to take the place of Congress in proposing an amendment to the states, and that proposal becomes part of the Constitution as soon as three-fourths of the states have ratified it. The second process was included in the Constitution at George Mason’s insistence to deal with situations in which Congress could not be expected to initiate the amendment process because Congress itself was all or part of the problem.

3/4x50=37.5

Thus 37.5, make it 38 states would need to ratify. It would be close at this point.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

That is not true, the Con-Con as you put it is only to propose amendments. The states would still have to take those proposals back to their legislators and vote to ratify them.

That is the way I read it, however anything and everything is now on the table, from the balance of power on down.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The lie is the originator of the world's problems.

Actually, since we can't have a lie without a human being present; most, nearly all (save natural disasters, asteroids, etc.) problems originate from humans. For example, did lemmings (or ants, or whales...) cause the world's problems prior to the emergence of humanity?

The opponents of private gun ownership think that the problems of violence can be alleviated with the elimination of all weapons. It will take more than that, it will take the elimination of all humans. Two humans eventually equals violence; one human, no violence, but also, no more humans.

When the guns are gone, what's next?

For the grabbers, there will always be a "next", unless they are stopped. I think that stoppage needs to be permanent when they arrive at the point of questioning the meaning of something as simple and unambiguous as the Second Amendment.

The question inherent isn't the necessity of arms, it is the necessity of militias. The primary purpose of any militia is to guarantee that government is never permitted to exceed its bounds. When the militia rose in 1775, it was in opposition to its own government, the British government, at the time. There was no other government extant at the time.

I believe that once the guns are gone, no problems of violence will actually be solved, and that those same proponents of gun elimination won't be satisfied until they have eliminated the gun owners, too. In point of fact, the elimination of private gun ownership has traditionally and historically been the harbinger of the elimination of the owners of those selfsame guns. Without the one, the other becomes problematic; and those who can't read history and find that lesson are dense beyond unteachable.

No one can enlighten the unteachable. No one can satisfy the insatiable.

Unfortunately, I seriously suspect that despite the "necessary" carnage (dare I say "violence"), the problem of violence will still exist, hastened on by the gun grabbers themselves. Doing the same thing (banning, Prohibition, etc.) over and over again in the expectation of some form of a better outcome is one definition of insanity. I think it's a very apt one, myself, in the case of gun Control.

Government, as Heinlein so incisively demonstrates in Starship Trooper, has its core embodiment in violence, either latent or blatant; and all its actions involves violence, however subtly applied (i.e. taxes, bans...), so engaging government in the task of elimination, even reducing, violence is an ultimate exercise in irony.

Employing political power for the purpose of improving (perfecting?) the voting populace is an abomination of the first order. I am absolutely certain the phrase " This government would be perfect if it wasn't for all those pesky voters..." has been uttered more than once in every democratic (small "d") congress across the globe.

Someone needs to educate governments in lessons such as they are not soon likely to forget. Prohibition should have been lesson enough, but clearly, more is needed.

Understand that when a government finds itself at such a juncture as ours, there are no good guys residing within its pews. For while there are undoubtedly wrongheaded participants, the rest are equally culpable, because they allow such things to happen. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible, but politics in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights is not supposed to be possible.

This brings us to the subject of competency. When wrong is allowed to become right in our very halls of legislation and justice, the test of competency is exceeded. When that happens, there can be no excuse, no "but the other guys ganged up and made it happen".

Bad answer, go somewhere else, perpetually...

If they won't, the populace is empowered, and obligated, to make that happen.

When it won't, it abrogates the tenet "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people". In so doing it fastens its own chains of serfdom, completely of and by itself.

Can you imagine Lincoln spinning in his grave? I can.

Greg

 

[RHunter]

Someone needs to educate governments in lessons such as they are not soon likely to forget. Prohibition should have been lesson enough, but clearly, more is needed.

I think that was the point of the statement made by Thomas Jefferson in the quote I posted above. 20 years basically represents a generation and in that span of time, it is easy for a generation to forget the mistakes of the previous one.

For the most part, anyone who could remember prohibition is dead. Those mistakes have been forgotten. Every generation thinks it can succeed where the previous one failed. Time and time again that has been proven to be false but they don't stop trying.

A lot of people who say things are different now, that history is not relevant to today, really need to learn more about history.

Our first Federal firearms restrictions put in place in 1934 was a direct response to the Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929. It was the criminal use of firearms that led to restrictions being placed on law abiding citizens.

Fast forward to today.. We have Newtown... What has changed? Newtown was the excuse of all of the anti-gun legislation passed in 2013. Nothing has changed. The government still uses a particular act as an excuse for the purpose of regulating firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Yes, and we all fall for the same old gambit.

So who's crazy now?

Them for doing it?

Or us for continuing to let it ride?

If it's us, then I'm damned tired of being crazy.

Time for a new approach.

I think it's time to resurrect government according to the Lincoln Model, and curb it's current tendency toward the Putin Model.

Elections are coming soon, but soon enough?

I warned us all back in 2012 that we were staring our last chance in the eyeballs. Here in New York, I'm obviously not just talking about Foggy Bottom.

I would so hate to be right about that comment; but it looks to be that the pivotal damage is already done.

New York is beginning to look more and more like Ukraine, with NYC and Albany unilaterally annexing the entire state. Seems we have our own Putin and a rubber stamp Duma right here in our own back yard.

Seems, anyway...

Greg

 

[Bigwheels]

After the gun bans in Brittan the rate of murder did not decline like the politicians thought so they studied the problem of violence without guns, & passed a law banning sharp pointed steak knives in response to the new weapon of choice. Man is violent by nature it seems.

 

[RHunter]

After the gun bans in Brittan the rate of murder did not decline like the politicians thought so they studied the problem of violence without guns, & passed a law banning sharp pointed steak knives in response to the new weapon of choice. Man is violent by nature it seems.

Now they use meat cleavers and hammers. Soon it will be rocks.

 

[longshooter]

The lie is the originator of the world's problems.

Actually, since we can't have a lie without a human being present; most, nearly all (save natural disasters, asteroids, etc.) problems originate from humans. For example, did lemmings (or ants, or whales...) cause the world's problems prior to the emergence of humanity?

That is correct. The lie, indicating human interaction, the world, indicating the sea of people.

 

[Graham]

Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

As I read this I see people at first blame the politicians, saying that the system is influenced by moneyed interests, then later say that it's our fault as individual participants. Which one is it? Has the system been hijacked or do we get the representatives we deserve?

History has shown that societies don't make important decisions based on the available evidence. Instead they follow the public wisdom of the time, often handed down to the people by ‘experts' who justify their participation as being the solution to the problems they themselves have created:

In the mid 1700's the experts of the day, the religious leaders, advised that church bells be rung during thunderstorms to ward-off evil spirits and that gunpowder be stored in churches to give it divine protection against lightning strikes. Between 1750 and 1784 lightning struck 386 church steeples, killing 103 bell-ringers. In 1767 lighting struck a Venetian church stocked with gunpowder; the explosion killed 3000 people. Before that had happened there was already ample evidence that gunpowder wasn't being protected by God. But everyone saw the problem as lightning, not religion.

Today people who see the gun as the problem see nothing but gun problems:

In Scotland, a place with a history of very tight gun control and almost no gun violence, the political answer to a single shooting in Dunblane was a total ban on handguns. In Canada in 1994, just prior to the round of gun control that killed the shooting sports and virtually eliminated the private ownership of firearms, the evidence was that one person in 400,000 had died as a result of a fatal gun accident. In comparison, one person in 360 would die from circulatory system diseases. Yet gun ownership was seen as the more important public health crisis. So Canada instituted a billion-dollar-plus gun registration scheme, all to prevent a reported 1108 suicides by firearm in a country of over thirty million people. Bottom line: Gun crime wasn't even on the statistical map, with .07% of Canadian guns ever having been used in a crime. But that didn't matter to the bell ringers.

My friend has a T-shirt with the slogan "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups." I like that one. Because two hundred years after Germany moved its gunpowder from its churches we continue to make our political decisions the same way. Except that our God has changed: Received wisdom today comes from academics.

The problem now is that the more advanced and more specialized our society becomes, the more quickly and the more often we make these huge mistakes: It used to be a scientific fact that asbestos was the most efficient way to insulate buildings. Then we learned about lung disease. Now the same experts say we need to get rid of all the asbestos. The experts used to tell us that feeding dead sheep to cows was the most efficient way to manage our food supply. Then came Mad Cow disease. Now the same experts advise us to slaughter entire herds of animals.

In sum, to change how a person (or a society) does something you have to change how he perceives what he is doing. Like the old joke about psychiatrists: It might take only one to change a lightbulb, but the lightbulb first has to want to change.

 

[drafter]

Oh, I long for a United States of America where the only voters are employed, educated, land/property/home owners. Then and only then will we get what we deserve as far as elected officials go.......
Imagine,,,,,,, welfare recipients, NO VOTE, food stamp recipients, NO VOTE, unemployed, NO VOTE, uneducated ( high school diploma AT LEAST ), NO VOTE, illegal aliens, NO VOTE.

Did I miss anyone?

 

[Graham]

Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?

Oh, I long for a United States of America where the only voters are employed, educated, land/property/home owners. Then and only then will we get what we deserve as far as elected officials go.......
Imagine,,,,,,, welfare recipients, NO VOTE, food stamp recipients, NO VOTE, unemployed, NO VOTE, uneducated ( high school diploma AT LEAST ), NO VOTE, illegal aliens, NO VOTE.

Did I miss anyone?

Gun owners, NO VOTE. Because you forgot to say who makes that decision.

In my opinion, the answer to bans is not more bans.

 

[KHOOKS]

to ^ ^^^ don't forget we got to get the working man to the voting booth! All of them and we need the votes to count one to one!

 

[Greg Langelius *]

As I read this I see people at first blame the politicians, saying that the system is influenced by moneyed interests, then later say that it's our fault as individual participants. Which one is it? Has the system been hijacked or do we get the representatives we deserve?

Good questions. My answers are, both, and both; and in my view the problem is bigger than these questions.

When the system can be gamed as much as it currently is, when public opinion can be manipulated like putty, the entire system is at fault.

I think that democratic government has, after all these years, proven to be a failed experiment. IMHO, trusting in it to dig itself, and us, out of the hole they've dug is asking for more than it could reasonably be trusted to deliver.

Did I miss anyone?

Probably, maybe lots.

But if I'm right about failed experiments, it could be that the question itself becomes irrelevant.

Next question; what's a better form of government?

Beats me, but we are beyond where what we have can be fixed by simple means; meanwhile, democratic government has already been given ample, and more, opportunity to prove its value, and has clearly failed. All that's left for it now is to spiral downward. As I am in no hurry to watch it auger all the way in, I'm somewhat relieved to be getting closer to the end of my own existence.

I don't presume to have answers; but even the questions, it this point, need to step outside the conventional box.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I don't blame any of the politicians, I blame all of them, and all of us who have empowered them without seeking ample recourse to their excesses.

don't forget we got to get the working man to the voting booth! All of them and we need the votes to count one to one!

With respect, the working man has always constituted the bulk of the vote. Such are not the solution, such are the largest part of the problem. They are manipulated like puppets, and even knowing so, they permit it to continue.

Don't mistake me for the working man; I have been out of the workforce for nearly a decade. Every penny I spend, and what few I save, come from Uncle Sugar; or more properly, from what I have paid in over an entire working lifetime.

When I arrive at the Pearly Gates, it's not the things I have done which will damn me. It's the things I have allowed to be done in my name, on my behalf, that will send me into the flames.

My approach to government is a random draft. Citizenship must be earned by voluntary service in mankind's behalf. All citizens must accept eligibility to serve one term, as randomly drafted, in the responsibility of governing their peers.

If you think this is a good idea, blame Heinlein, not me. This comes straight out of Starship Trooper; as the mandate of those veterans who took up the reins when the ultimately self serving democratic government ultimately failed.

Stick around, we all have a front row seat.

Greg

 

[SilentStalkr]

Wow, there has been a lot of intelligent discourse on this topic, especially between RHunter, MosestheTank and others. I have loved reading every bit of this thread and hope it can continue. I can actually agree, in some form or fashion, with what most have stated already, but I think what the important thing to remember is that peaceful resolutions should always be sought after first. Some have pointed that out in a very eloquent way. However, as with all things, sometimes one side will not concede to the other and you have no other option. At some point someone is going to overstep their bounds and the other side will be forced to meet the opposition, but you have to be careful here because that is probably in the playbook and may be exactly how they want certain people to react. On the other hand, I think we are going to have a serious economic collapse before anything major like that will happen and then the corruption from the inside will either be forced to correct itself or someone from the outside will do it for them. There are many in the ranks that are very worried a real collapse is coming and when it does its going to come hard and fast, most likely worldwide, and at that point the last thing on anyone’s mind will be to have an idea of coming door to door to round up any kind of weapons.

However, if they ever did come to round up anything one has to make a decision, a very tough decision that few will probably make. Most will cower and fold. Our forefathers had to make those hard decisions and lucky for us they did because by doing so they started the creation of the best nation this world has ever seen. I firmly believe in the ideals that this nation was founded on and because of that I lean more to the same side as RHunter on this. The problem is that it’s easy to say you will resist any kind of movement. People have no idea how much of an undertaking such a resistance would be. It would be mass chaos if they did decided to come door to door. How would one organize against something like that? How would you determine friend from foe in such a situation? You would never stand a chance alone. And, if they ever did come door to door you aren’t going to find out about it to help your friend or family until its too late, if you ever find out at all. They have the upper hand here and if any one family or person did resist it plays right into their hands because they will use the media to make you out to be a crazy loon and thereby further justify what they are doing. You see if people don’t stand on a front together (united) we all fall. That is no easy task to pull off. You are going to have to have entire cities, neighborhoods, whatever resisting any kind of confiscation to be effective. While we would all like to believe that would happen if they came door to door I think its pretty clear already that this is not likely to be the scenario. Nobody will ever know until that time actually comes but I feel like there are a few patriots left.

Suppose someone took the same actions as Egypt or a handful of other places. And, let me be clear I am not suggesting any such thing. Have you seen the results of that? It’s mass chaos. Who decides on the replacements? How does one go about setting up something new? Sadly, an act such as one above will usually lead to civil war and in most cases a tyrannical leader takes over. When America was created it was done so in very special circumstances at a very special time and happened to work out. If that same scenario were to play out today I am not sure about what the future America would be like. It could be much worse than anyone could imagine. Just something to ponder. Its easy to tell people they need to stand firm and take action but without giving them an effective way to change things it does little for the argument.

 

[SilentStalkr]

[MENTION=89931]RHunter[/MENTION],

I am not sure we are in agreement on how we go from here to there. I do not think it is a step from a desire for tyranny, to wiping out the 2nd Amendment to armed confrontation. I believe there are many intervening steps. Alinsky's outline is a sort of road map to the many fronts under assault. Speech, private property, taxation, and of course firearms are all the objects of focus for a change in an effort to effect a state of control that is something opposite what most of us would call liberty. The efforts of anti-gun politicians are to marginalize gun owners, the efforts of academia are to give the impression that we are a mass of mouth breathing troglodytes. We suffer it constantly and I feel sure that most everyone here has some personal story to validate this for themselves (see Rule 12 above, the the constitution is not made out to be a moronic document, it just needs to be updated. The framers were not stupid, they just lived in another place and time. But you and I, we'll we're just hapless idiots). How do you control the message? Media. It is axiomatic that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and look at the current efforts to set this in motion. Is the power to tax for the purpose of destruction really what the founding fathers had in mind? Of course not. But the fact that such an action is openly debated represents a sea change in the philosophy of much of our government.

Politicians have the power they have because they were voted in by people who largely have no opinion of their own on many of these particular matters because they don't see it as necessary to their lives. Because politics is a media event people tend to go with the shiniest and most wrinkle free candidate and wind up taking on some of their opinions. This is the audience for explaining things to. Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. Should things come to a head it is this population that will be the most traumatized as they will flounder for a way to make sense of it.

To the OPs question, I certainly hope not. Not just because it's wrong, but because the consequences may be horrific. I do not want to see this attack on our constitution through to some spectacular doom, although I do want it righted. The reason for this is because I know very well what middle America is capable of, and the thought of its wrath being brought to bear within the borders of this country scares the bejeesus out of me. I know that pretty much no one is going anywhere. Sure, some people may go to Canada, or Belize or wherever, but the rest of us including me are staying put no matter how things go. I believe we are now at one of those intervening stages where we may be leaning towards confrontation, but we are not there yet. Even if it seems inevitable it is not a reason not to try to stem it.

Perfectly stated...

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I honestly doubt that any overt acts would need be called for. I think the train already has more momentum than any act could arrest before it jumps rails and goes over the cliff. Best to simply grab a good seat and cook up the popcorn. Certainly lend a hand if asked; but otherwise, they are so sure they have it all under control, I believe it would be incautious to disagree.

As for what follows, I think that's unpredictable. Aside from some prudent precautions, I don't think a lot more could, or should be done. Precautions are better kept close to hand and not needed, than needed and absent. Stockpiling simply raises one's profile to heights one could quickly grow to regret. My neighbors are good people, good enough to share prospects with, rather than eyeing sideways.

The main thing is to present a solid front; no more, things are already gone too far...

First step, nobody votes for any incumbent. They all need to understand that none of them are blameless. If the new batch still doesn't get the point, well, things proceed accordingly from there. Every once in awhile, even dead folks get reelected to office; things are that bad.

The reason the system is broken is because all too may people are complacent with the status quo. When the incumbents, and the 'leaders' find themselves otherwise employed, the system gets it's needed wakeup call.

You will never see sitting politicians vote term limits, but they really don't have to, we can do it for them.

When our government was invented, the understanding was that it would be composed of citizen statesmen, not professional politicians. Now, as family generations get elected to the same offices, it's time to throw the flag. Nobody can resist the corruption of power for the duration of generations, and those who disagree are not getting my support.

Meanwhile, time to wait and watch.

Greg

 

[SilentStalkr]

I honestly doubt that any overt acts would be called for. I think the train already has more momentum than any act could arrest before it jumps rails and goes over the cliff. Best to simply grab a good seat and cook up the popcorn.

As for what follows, I think that's unpredictable. Aside from some prudent precautions, I don't think a lot more could be, or should be done. Precautions are better kept close to hand and not needed, than needed and absent. Stockpiling simply raises one's profile to heights one could quickly grow to regret. My neighbors are good people, good enough to share prospects with, rather than eyeing sideways.

Meanwhile, time to wait and watch.

Greg

Well said.

 

[luvnar]

I would quit my job if it meant going against the constitution that made this country great..Wtf is wrong with you