Gun control author understands danger of "gun free" zones….

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezkl2230
  • Start date Start date
E

ezkl2230

Guest
This appeared in an article written by Jason Stadtlander, a writer for HuffPo and a supporter of gun control:


"A ban on guns is not gun control. I am for gun control -- that is, controlling who can have guns and who cannot. I do believe that individuals who own guns should go through a screening, licensure and perhaps even medical-history evaluation, but this is not the same as banning guns or preventing ownership of guns.

Alexander Hamilton once said, "The constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

"Peaceable citizens" is the key term here. We are maintaining a level of peace by providing knowledge that there are repercussions for certain actions… As long as guns exist in the world, criminals will always have guns -- but we law-abiding citizens have the power to choose whether we will hold our own strength against them.

"[…] Ask yourself this question: If you were a criminal, had a bone to pick with society or were mentally unstable and wanted to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible, would you walk into a McDonald's where there is no ban on guns and you might get shot, or would you set your sights on a Panera Bread, where you do not need to worry about resistance of any kind?"

Gun Bans a Safe Haven for Killers*|*Jason P. Stadtlander

Mr. Stadtlander has come full circle to the observation made by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Thoughts on Defensive War :


"but since some will not, others dare not lay them [arms] aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
 
He assumes people are not peaceable unless they prove it. Guilty until proven innocent is the normal.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
He assumes people are not peaceable unless they prove it. Guilty until proven innocent is the normal.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Well, those who do concealed carry are making the same assumption, only it's an armed assumption. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who does concealed carry concealed state that they don't trust others, and want to protect themselves. That's the same kind of argument you are decrying. The only difference is that the writer in that article is putting the burden of proof on the government to provide a vetting of those who want to carry, while those who are carrying are doing the same thing without any standard, procedure, or any type of proof. I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

It is wiser to accept a friend, even if they don't fully subscribe to all your beliefs, than to scorn them and make them an enemy.
 
Well, those who do concealed carry are making the same assumption, only it's an armed assumption. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who does concealed carry concealed state that they don't trust others, and want to protect themselves. That's the same kind of argument you are decrying. The only difference is that the writer in that article is putting the burden of proof on the government to provide a vetting of those who want to carry, while those who are carrying are doing the same thing without any standard, procedure, or any type of proof. I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

It is wiser to accept a friend, even if they don't fully subscribe to all your beliefs, than to scorn them and make them an enemy.

Speaking as one who carries concealed the majority of the time, my decision to carry in that fashion has nothing to do with mistrusting my fellow man. It is the manner with which I am most comfortable, end of story. I simply choose not to advertise that I am carrying my firearm. You're making a big assumption about the motivation of CCers.

And BTW, numerous threads have been devoted to the OC/CC debate and the reasons behind the decision to carry one way or the other.
 
I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, because I do agree with your comment on trying to make friends. But I must comment on this statement.
Want to know something that Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao Zedong's China: Fantastic government oversight of firearms. They definitely assured that nobody that they deemed incompetent had access to them. A few other things that they had in common was rampant abuse of civil liberties and massive amounts of murdered innocents.

I'm not saying that our government is in the same state as those others, but likely one day it may be. Also, there is compelling evidence that less gun control results in less crime and less murder. But let's ignore the evidence and say that more lives would be saved with strict gun control; I promise you that those lives lost would be incomparable to the death and suffering caused by future corruption and conflict, both foreign and domestic.

If we're really interested in saving lives then why not focus on society's moral decay, mental health issues, technological advances in safety for automobiles, and public health & fitness? Gun deaths are nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to fatalities caused as a result of every single one of the things in that list; and yet, having guns in the hands of the people is an essential component of maintaining our freedom.
 
I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

Government oversight and licensing provides more of a burden to the person who desires to lawfully carry a firearm than it does anything else. As you state, it provides a "MINIMUM" of knowledge and competence - and the burden on the law abiding person far outweighs the minimum benefit. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin.

Firearms carry licenses/permits have no affect on the criminals, it only makes it more difficult for the law abiding to have the means to defend themselves with. In addition, exactly what problem are you suggesting we solve with "government oversight?" In the states where no training is required to carry a gun we don't have any extra problems that you claim are solved with your "government oversight".
 
~snip~
I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

That's a dangerous assumption, my friend. That's like assuming that police officers are highly trained professionals b/c they undergo minimum training to become one.
 
Well, those who do concealed carry are making the same assumption, only it's an armed assumption. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who does concealed carry concealed state that they don't trust others, and want to protect themselves. That's the same kind of argument you are decrying. The only difference is that the writer in that article is putting the burden of proof on the government to provide a vetting of those who want to carry, while those who are carrying are doing the same thing without any standard, procedure, or any type of proof. I'm much happier to accept government oversight and licensing because it provides a minimum assurance of knowledge and competence.

It is wiser to accept a friend, even if they don't fully subscribe to all your beliefs, than to scorn them and make them an enemy.

What everyone else has said above.

You give government to much credit and the People too little.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
That's a dangerous assumption, my friend. That's like assuming that police officers are highly trained professionals b/c they undergo minimum training to become one.
Well, the real problem is we are talking in generalities here, and that's always inaccurate and prone to misinterpretation and outright weird situations.

I agree with your statement, and, unfortunately, it also applies to the good citizens with good intentions who want to carry.

There are NO easy and completely safe answers. There are only compromises to achieve the bets solution possible, under the circumstances.
 
Well, the real problem is we are talking in generalities here, and that's always inaccurate and prone to misinterpretation and outright weird situations.

I agree with your statement, and, unfortunately, it also applies to the good citizens with good intentions who want to carry.

There are NO easy and completely safe answers. There are only compromises to achieve the bets solution possible, under the circumstances.

The "circumstances" to which you refer include an oft-ignored phrase in law that goes, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Perhaps you can succinctly define the available compromises contained in that phrase?

"Compromise" is just another word for infringement. Leave my rights alone and you'll suffer no adverse "circumstances" that I would support and/or be responsible for. You have my consent to infer the inverse of my previous sentence.

Blues
 
Has nobody noticed that ANYTHING the government has a hand in, is a convoluted, money-sucking worthless addition to the already out-of-control U.S. Government?

What has been proposed, is exactly the kind of big-government, bovine scatological excess that has us teetering on the brink of our dollar melt-down. More government oversight? Are you kidding me?

No, thanks. I'll pass.
 
The problem with absolutes is that at some point, the point comes back to stick you.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is so that The People have at all times the absolute right to defend themselves from those who "stick" them, whether it be a bad guy on the street or in your home, or the government itself that seeks more power and control over the rights they are absolutely prohibited from infringing upon.

I can defend myself. I'd be happy to teach anyone who can't do the same how to, but I will put many times the amount of effort into fighting anyone who seeks to empower government to "reasonably" restrict my rights, 2A or otherwise.

If you think that one guy whom you've never met should be restricted from owning a firearm because he might be a psychopath, while simultaneously thinking some other guy whom you've also never met is OK to be armed - who also might be a psychopath - because a third guy or group of guys whom you've also never met, and who are employed by government - authorizes it - then you might be a big-government statist.

statismjpgw560h373.jpg


I've never met a statist yet that had anything to say worth listening to.

Blues
 
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is so that The People have at all times the absolute right to defend themselves from those who "stick" them, whether it be a bad guy on the street or in your home, or the government itself that seeks more power and control over the rights they are absolutely prohibited from infringing upon.

I can defend myself. I'd be happy to teach anyone who can't do the same how to, but I will put many times the amount of effort into fighting anyone who seeks to empower government to "reasonably" restrict my rights, 2A or otherwise.

If you think that one guy whom you've never met should be restricted from owning a firearm because he might be a psychopath, while simultaneously thinking some other guy whom you've also never met is OK to be armed - who also might be a psychopath - because a third guy or group of guys whom you've also never met, and who are employed by government - authorizes it - then you might be a big-government statist.

statismjpgw560h373.jpg


I've never met a statist yet that had anything to say worth listening to.

Blues

~75% of the time those gov't types will be proven wrong in their findings. That is why both law and medicine are both called practices because there is no absolutes in either.
 
The problem with absolutes is that at some point, the point comes back to stick you.


If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly. I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists. God help us all if it ever does happen.
PS Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name of

D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian.

Henry Ford
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top