Prepare To Be Disarmed – The Holy Grail “Gun Control” Outline For Progressive, Professional, Leftists Exposed – Guest Post By Michelle

(introduction by Sundance)  Dear Readers:

The nature of lies is to please…. Truth has no concern for anyone’s comfort.

— Catherine Dunn

Prepare to be uncomfortable.    Today we will share some truthful information regarding the pending Dianne Feinstein “Assault Weapon” legislation.

Senator-Dianne-Feinstein

But first I want to remind you of a specific date:  January 20th 2010.

That was the day AFTER Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown won his historic election and turned the “Kennedy Seat” back to the “Peoples Seat”……..

Everyone, and I do mean “everyone”, proclaimed victory in killing Obamacare, there was no way President Obama was going to get it passed now because Brown represented the proverbial 41st Senate vote against it, reducing the Senate support to 59 one less than Harry Reid needed.

Oh, how joyful, and insufferably naive the Constitutional Conservative, Tea Party, Republican movement was.   As a lone voice, we shouted out then the opinion that it did not matter, Obamacare would get through ‘By.Any.Means.Neccessary’, because we know these people and how they operate, and it did.   On January 20th our little voice was an infinitesimal minority – Everyone thought victory over Obama was at hand.

Reid-Schumer

Of a similar mindset today I read this from Conservative Professor Jacobson:

Legislative overreach reveals the agenda – Senator Dianne Feinstein has released a summary (reprinted at bottom of post) of the legislation she intends to introduce in the Senate early in January.

It contains many provisions which have no chance of passing, and thereby dooms the legislation.  Such sweeping legislation is a gift to opponents of any legislation because it calls into question the motives of Feinstein and others pushing what is the equivalent of Obamacare for gun control.  (read more)

Here we go again, with the: “they can’t”,  “it will never”, “there’s no chance”, “Americans will not allow”,  “it’s impossible”, and my all time favorite: “they wouldn’t“.

When, just when, are we gonna learn to get the heck off the field, walk up to the top of the bleachers, and look at the WHOLE GAME ?   Yes they can, yes they will, it’s quite possible, and Americans WILL allow.  Want Proof ?   OBAMACARE !!

So let me introduce you to a lady, a badass hot chick, who will forget more about guns, weaponry and firearm ownership manipulation than most individuals will or could ever know.  Her name is Michelle and I think you will enjoy this…. /SD

Michelle HartMichelle Hart – Before I begin I would like to thank Sundance for providing this opportunity to write for the Tree House.

I would also like to make a few thing’s crystal clear, There are around 75,000 types of small arms on the planet today depending on how stringently you classify them, and I’ve used most of them offensively and defensively, and that is the extent to which I will discus my background in modern weapon systems. So please don’t ask me for details because that is not the purpose of this contribution and it’s actually just not very relevent.

One thing you really do need to grasp though before I continue, probably above everything else, is that I’m really not interested in what your “hunting buddies” told you, or what you heard on the sportsman channel from Bubba. I don’t care what you think you know, or how many years you have been walking a beat, or any of the rest of that typical macho stuff. This is the very big picture information you need to understand about what is coming, and how the statists and America’s enemies plan to accomplish it.

Welcome to Michelle’s Gun Girl Class, or Hot Guns & Smart Chicks!

girls-with-guns-15

There are many types of weapon systems in use all over the world, and each of those are classified as a heavy, medium or light direct fire and indirect fire weapons. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s really all there is. I’m going to try my best to not go all Jane’s on you and also do my best to keep it simple and make this fun to read, but I do have a lot to cover.

In 1861 Dr. Richard J. Gatling designed the first machine gun. This machine gun was adopted for use in 1862 by the United States Army. The Gatling gun is a box fed, air-cooled, manually operated, direct fire weapon, operating from the open bolt position.

Twenty two years later in 1884 The British inventor Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim designed the first self-powered machine gun. His machine gun began service in the British Army in 1889. The Vickers Gun is a belt fed, water-cooled, recoil operated, direct fire weapon, operating from the open bolt position.

Regardless of the weapon type, or size, it will use one of three methods to fire a projectile. Manual, recoil, or gas… That’s it… there are no other methods in use anywhere on the planet, regardless of the weapon type, caliber, or design, and yes that includes naval gunfire from the USS Missouri; which is manual just in case you were wondering.

To begin, this is the most simple and basic understanding you will ever need to truly understand any weapon that has ever been created. It will be a direct or indirect fire weapon, and it will function based on one of these three principles of operation… gas, recoil, or manual. Take a wild guess what the Roman Gladius is.. that’s right, it’s an indirect fire – manual operation weapon.

Now pay close attention because this is where it starts getting super interesting. There is no such thing as a “machine gun” an “assault rifle” or a “semi automatic”, its complete fiction created by Hollywood, and other idiots to sell movie tickets, confuse, deceive or scare you. Please don’t start with the “but the M-16 has it on the receiver tripe” I know why it’s actually on there, and I seriously doubt you do, though it is possible. I can assure you though, that I don’t know everything. Now I know it just breaks your little heart knowing Rambo didn’t actually carry around a machine gun, or that everybody at the gun range, the gun shows, the skeet club or wherever has told you that’s what it is, but honey it just ain’t so.

What Rambo carried was a belt fed, air-cooled, gas operated direct fire weapon that operated from the open bolt position, or the 23 pound Model-60 adopted in 1957 if ya wanna go all tech on me later.

An automatic weapon by design will automatically reload without additional interaction from the user. The Ruger 10-22, mini-14, Mak-90, SKS, the AR clones, will automatically move a cartridge from the magazine to the chamber without any assistance which makes it an auto loader or an automatic just like the Vickers and just like the M-60. Every gas, or recoil operated weapon produced is an automatic. Most automatic pistols like all the 1911 clones, the Beretta 92F, Glock, Sig Saur or any other modern pistol will automatically reload because they are recoil operated. The Colt Automatic Pistol M-1911 fires caliber .45 ACP or Automatic Colt Pistol ammunition, and that is the actual military designation.

Regardless of what type of weapon you have, it either AUTOMATICALLY reloads or it does not. there is either fully automated, non user intervention reloading limited only by ammunition supply, or there is not. Then we have manual loading, which is just about every single bolt, lever or pump-action shotgun or rifle ever made, or in production today. Each of these require the user to operate the action and manually move a cartridge from the magazine and into the chamber. Depending on the weapon the magazine may be part of the weapons action or removable. The Garand, Mauser, Henry and the Sharps have fixed magazines, but the Enfield does not.

All firearms of any type will move only ONE cartridge to the chamber to fire with each cycle of the action regardless of action type. There is no partial-automatic, half-automatic, or semi-automatic.   The rate of fire is determined by the design of the action NOT the method of operation.  Remember gas, recoil or manual is the only way a weapon will ever cycle. This is the key point you need to focus on, rather than arguing with me about semantics or what Bubba at the hog hunt told you. There is a reason you have never seen a machine revolver or a machine Winchester, the action isn’t designed for direct fire. I will admit though, that sure would be cool to see at the range.

I sure hope you are starting to see the bigger picture by now.

Every weapon I’ve discussed has focused entirely on how it operates, how it loads, the way it was designed, and some of the specific attributes of these different weapon systems. However,  beginning in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, and now with Feinstein’s soon to be introduced complete elimination of the 2nd Amendment bill none of that matters.

The reason none of it matters should be obvious, the method of operation is completely irrelevant to the specific goals of who we are fighting. The Winchester 38-40 could operate by popsicle sticks for all they care, and if they thought it did, they would make those illegal too. How a weapon operates, how it loads, how it’s used is not nearly as important as its availability and appearance.

Try to wrap you mind around this, communists are DIVAs… They are full tilt over the top Divas. Everything is about how it looks, and never about how it works. Every single “social program” is an absolute dismal failure, but it sure looks good when they drop a few million on welfare for the kids doesn’t it? It sure is a great photo with the kiddies on that new basketball court right? So what if they can’t read, that really isn’t what matters. It’s always about the reviews and stage lighting, never the actual performance.

“Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically named firearms

“Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of gun owners: 900 specifically named firearms”

You need to think really long and really hard about this next statement!

guns 2

So if I have a bright fuchsia, belt fed, gas operated, auto loader, direct fire weapon named “chocolate cream pudding” it’s just dandy then right? Maybe I should rename it though to something like “hot fluffy kittens” just to make sure it isn’t banned.   Do you understand now that it’s about the ACTUAL LANGUAGE they are using because the name and appearance of a weapon has absolutely no effect on how it functions!

These are lawyers and their goal is to be a vague as possible to ensure that anything can be considered illegal.

The communists will continually re-define, the re-definition of the defined re-definition that is defined by the definition of the re-defined previous definition.

It’s all word games and Kabuki theatre with people who do not have the slightest clue how a weapon functions, how it loads, or what its primary use is. The only problem they really have is their own ignorance, but fortunately for them most gun owners don’t know very much either and go along with whatever the liberals dream up. How do you criminalize something you know absolutely nothing about, well you start with how it looks, marginalize and mock it…. remember the rules for radicals?

Everybody is completely focused on “the list of 120″ rather than the specific language used to describe these weapons. Every modern pistol has a box magazine, and one military characteristic, and most hold more than 10 cartridges and they are all auto loaders. Remember Automatic Colt Pistol is the original military designation NOT a civilian one.

Guess what the one military characteristic of an 1861 Springfield is? It’s the bayonet lug! Do you realize the reason that the Sharps and Henry Rifles have saddle rings was specifically for use by the military. The Garand, the Enfield, the M-1, all the AR clones, and anything similar will be gone forever because they all have one military characteristic. Do you have any idea what they are, or why it’s even a military characteristic? It’s all about the name, the availability, the access, or how they look.

Do you actually believe any of them actually know what the M2 Tombstone Drum is or even what weapon it attached to? Will the P-38 or Lugar your grandpa brought back from Normandy really be safe, and why on earth does anyone need to know that you have it?

This has nothing to do with who made the weapon. Whether it’s a Colt, Bushmaster, Armilite, Mosberg, or Taurus doesn’t really matter, it’s a weapon and that is what matters the most. It really doesn’t matter that ammunition for that C-96 or Krag is already really hard to find. They both have a 10 round magazine, and that is what matters.

Can any of you tell me what a legitimate hunter is, or name one single antique manually operated weapon from memory? Do you feel like trying to accurately define what a sporting purpose is, and then explain how legitimate it may be?

Do you honestly believe that the same people who have been claiming that a reduction of planned spending in the future is really a spending cut today will know the difference between a manually operated weapon or a gas operated one? They can’t even grasp “shall not be infringed” but you trust them to decide what ammunition feeding devices are?

The most common “assault rifle” in service during the 1700′s was the firelock, Bess, or Land Pattern Musket which used .75 caliber ball and was in service from 1722 until 1838 with the British Army. The Firelock is an indirect fire, air-cooled, manual loader, which operates from the open bolt position. The Firelock also has a bayonet lug, and is classified as Military Ordinance by the British Crown just in case you were wondering.

You better start paying a lot closer attention to what these communists are saying, because according to Diane Feinstein the Land Pattern Musket will be illegal to sell, transfer, import, or manufacture in the United States. There is not a single firearm in production today or that was produced after the 1700′s regardless of the type, caliber, feed system, or design that will be legal to own without registration. NOT ONE!

The VERY FIRST THING that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and anyone I left out began with was mandatory registration, followed by confiscation and that was quickly followed with camps. Do you really think they are going to wait until you are just sitting at home ready to fight back or grab you on your way to work, to school? Perhaps you forgot about what happened in Waco Texas a few years back. Feel free to tell me which prison William Jefferson Clinton and Janet Reno are serving time in for the actual premeditated murder of American citizens, who were given no due process, no trial,and no Miranda rights.

Specifically named, detachable or fixed magazine, a military characteristic, handguns, feeding devices, 10 cartridge maximum, other rifles…… Which one of these increases the rate of fire, the accuracy, the range, the lethality of cartridge used?

The answer is none of them!

Even though an 1860 44-40 Henry is an antique, and by todays standards obsolete, the saddle rings alone are the one military characteristic they need for it to qualify as an “assault rifle” even though we don’t use lanyards or horses in combat anymore. Watch an old western sometime and maybe you will see how they were actually used.

The NDAA is already here, which makes this next infringement even worse. This entire thing is designed to generate friction, to provoke a response, it’s the shot directly across the bow to draw Americans out into the street. Never forget that communists are full tilt Divas who crave the stage but can’t perform and need to look good at all costs.  The goal is to arrest people, to get people to start fighting back, just Imagine how Chris Mathews will frame the narrative when hundreds of armed protesters are arrested or do actually fight back.

We have already seen the violence from the unions and occupy, the raids on Gibson [Guitar], now the cries for confiscation, publishing the names of gun owners, and now the total elimination of the 2nd amendment has arrived.

Are you seeing the big picture yet?

52-police

…. if you’re happy and you know it clank your chains..

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Communist, Guest Post, Harry Reid, media bias, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Predictions, Socialist, Tea Party, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to Prepare To Be Disarmed – The Holy Grail “Gun Control” Outline For Progressive, Professional, Leftists Exposed – Guest Post By Michelle

    • Joke & Dagger says:

      You guys can get all bogged down on the details as you like. This bill is simply a distraction that has no chance of passing. The real gun control efforts will be much more nefariously constructed and implemented.

  1. Arkindole says:

    Yep; Unfortunately, the odds are that they will keep coming with false flags until it happens. School bus, airport areas, entire office complex, blood/tissue splatter on a live telecast, whatever it takes–it’s being discussed all over the back channels. They must act now, or within the next two years, while they have the perceived momentum. Let’s not forget about that pesky dollar collapse either.

  2. cajunkelly says:

    (sigh) I was turned off at the “I know more, have done more and have forgotten more with and about guns than you’ll ever know or do” introduction.

    vinegar and honey, sugar, vinegar and honey

    • gretchenone says:

      Interesting observation.

    • Michelle Hart says:

      Honestly I wasn’t going for pleasant, and there are a log of guys who REALLY don’t like women who know more than they do so I left all the sugar at home.

      • stellap says:

        Apparently there are women who don’t like anyone to know more than they do either. Thanks for the excellent commentary.

        • Michelle Hart says:

          My goal is to simply point out the severe difference in what the commies are claiming is “dangerous” and the factual reality of weapon operations. The key is to KNOW you equipment far better than you enemy….

          Product knowledge is how you sell things, and we MUST know our product better than the opposition.

        • cajunkelly says:

          This *woman* doesn’t have a prople with anyone, even males, knowing more than I do about certain things, and I have no problem admitting when my expertise is less than someone else’s, male or female.
          MY concern, as I said below, is that the torpedo opening results in some blowing it off and not reading beyond it.

          YMMV (shrug)

          • cajunkelly says:

            *problem

          • stellap says:

            You specifically said,

            (sigh) I was turned off at the “I know more, have done more and have forgotten more with and about guns than you’ll ever know or do” introduction.

            Forgive me for not understanding that you meant that “the torpedo opening results in some blowing it off”.

            • Michelle Hart says:

              Actually, Stella… I didn’t write that portion, And I really would prefer not to say it, but Sundance added that as a heading/intro.

              Personally it doesn’t bother me because my feeling is that he was just trying to pump the crowd a little and if Kelly was just put off by it, then so be it. I was going for sugar anyway and had no intention of wearing pig tails to be cutesie about what we are facing so the addition does not bother me one bit.

      • annieoakley says:

        Thanks for the commentary and while I know both male knows-it-all and females of the same stripe . I think that the Finesteins of the Senate and Sheila jackson Lees of the house are just hateful and mean enough to ram this through.

      • cajunkelly says:

        not really

      • cajunkelly says:

        not really

        • cajunkelly says:

          have no idea why that posted twice…no it wasn’t a meow

          It’s simply (IMO) that the torpedo approach immediately turns some people off and they won’t read past it.

          I knew my comment wouldn’t be popular. It’s easy to make comments that everyone likes.

          • Ad rem says:

            I beg to differ. It’s even easier to make hyper-critical and thoughtless remarks.

            • cajunkelly says:

              How is my remark thoughtless? It seriously is a concern of mine that the opening *can* turn off some, and they won’t read beyond that.

              How is that thoughtless?

              • Ad rem says:

                Knock it off with the coy routine CK. We ALL get what your comments mean.

                • cajunkelly says:

                  Excuse me? Evidently *I* don’t get what my comments mean, if I’m being confronted in this manner.

                  Michelle didn’t seem to take offense.

                  I truly am confused and don’t understand the sudden gang-up.

                  • yankeeintx says:

                    I will be the first to admit I am not very knowledgeable about guns. I agree with you that while the information is interesting and important, the format is a bit harsh. IMO the whole “I am smarter than everyone on the subject, so shut up and listen” does not open up an honest and educational dialogue. I am a real woman, with real questions, but will go ask my hunting buddy Bubba, because he isn’t so patronizing.

                  • michellc says:

                    I go to my brother, he’s literally fired almost every gun made including a few he built himself. I also go to my daughter’s fiance who grew up at his Grandpa’s knee who was in the military, in LE, worked in a gun factory, a private gun smith, dealer and collector. Even my brother who I always thought was the king of kings when it comes to guns, admits this boy knows more than him.
                    Single shot, semi-automatic and automatic have been the accepted use of words for a long time.
                    Myself, all I ever cared about was how to load it, clean it and shoot it, which I’ve been doing pretty much since I could hold a gun.

                    The simple fact is the government turned semi-automatics into “assault weapons” now Feinstein is trying to turn handguns into “assault weapons” as well. They’ve already convinced nearly half the nation that an AR-15 is an assault weapon, so before long they will do the same with handguns.
                    Like I said if they get their way the bill will end up with language that could make your son’s bb gun illegal.
                    That’s my dumbed down version of what their plans are.

  3. czarowniczy says:

    An old friend who’s been in the business longer than I reminded me of a mostly long-forgotten incident. To those of you who do not know, embassies are allowed to receive diplomatic pouches from their home lands which contain diplomatic ‘things’ that are immune from inspection by the hosting country. Most people think the ‘pouches’ are little bags, few know that the definition applies also to huge sea-vans moved by 18-wheelers and whatever they contain. The Russians, during the Cold War, admittedly used very large ‘diplomatic pouches’ to smuggle weapons, ammunition, explosives, communication devices, and other offensive items into the US. Once here they were buried around the country in booby trapped containers awaiting their retrieval by sleeper agents ot Spetznaz in the time of war. These containers came to public light in the early 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union. Some are still not accounted for – they Russians say they ‘lost track’ of all of the locations, and they are still out there somewhere.

    The Israelis allegedly also smuggled weapons and ammunition into the US using diplomatic means, allegedly to be used by Jewish groups in the event of an American holocaust. They also allegedly supplied some US Jewish defense groups with money to buy arms and ammunition here though these spurious allegations have not been confirmed by any political source.

    Point is, plans are being made so that the US citizens cannot buy guns but certain groups with overseas ties can get them shipped in through diplomatic means. No one will touch this area as the US also allegedly uses it to sneak things into other countries that need sneaking. I’ve already posted the two incidents of the Chinese being caught trying to sneak FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons into the US for sale to their gang contacts – who knows how many times they’ve succeeded – and the US basically ignoring the shipments. So, the list of which people living in the US who can legally own weapons shrinks while the list of those who can illegally get them grows.

  4. WeeWeed says:

    Well done, Michelle, and thank you for the lesson on the mechanics! I can see now how it’s coming (in the wording.) NOTHING will be legal for us peasants….. makes it much easier to kill us when we’re unarmed.

    • canadacan says:

      I need time to think and reach out to some people who are similarly gifted with all this knowledge.

    • Michelle Hart says:

      When I read the initial draft that was the FIRST thing I noticed, which I why I focused on really old weapons rather than more current ones because all of those will be illegal by default.

  5. waltherppk says:

    Direct fire is simply line of sight more or less flat trajectory (low arc) from weapon to target. Indirect fire is a highly arcing trajectory for example “raining down from the sky” over the target like mortar fire, where the target is barricaded against direct fire. Most weapons can be used in either manner, direct fire or indirect fire, but because of design may be better at one type fire than the other.

    Typically semi-automatic simply refers to an autoloader which still requires a separate pull of the trigger for firing each shot, while a full auto will continue firing so long as the trigger is held back, either firing a specified number of shots as a burst or firing continually until available ammo is exhausted or the trigger is released. The “full auto” weapon not only autoloads but auto fires the next loaded round if the trigger is held back.

    The second amendment really has nothing to do with the type weapon, but has to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms being declared is a right not to be infringed.

    The constitutional crisis which exists is simply a dispute between oath keepers and LIARS, a dispute between patriots who understand their rights and criminal tyrants who would violate those rights while acting under COLOR OF AUTHORITY, which is itself a felony crime.

    What type of arms are at issue or how many times those arms fire and what is the mechanical configuration, size length of barrel, cycling rate, action type, ammunition capacity, ect., ect., of those arms is entirely irrelevant. Such aspects are a non issue which have no bearing whatever on the right specified by the second amendment.

    Infringements upon the second amendment are like citing every man for being in possession of an unlicensed penis, or citing every woman for being in possession of an unlicensed vagina.

    • michellc says:

      Very good comment. The schematics don’t matter, I think most of us understand or should understand when they write bills they will purposely write the bill to mean anything the government wants it to mean. They don’t write in such simple plain English like the founding Fathers did. So the language will end up banning bb guns, because the goal really isn’t about guns it’s about control and fear. Control by not only disarming people through laws but also through fear of some people getting rid of guns all together out of fear even their bb gun may now be illegal.

      The Second Amendment is written in plain English, easily understood and that’s why they hate it and try to make it mean something else, because that’s what they do.

  6. jordan2222 says:

    This is the best explanation I can find. If you are an Orgiinalist like Scalia, then the Federalist Papers are essential to understand the Constitution in the context of today’s world:

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

    Federalist numbers 29 and 46 as well as 28 say it very well.

    • waltherppk says:

      Noah Webster IIRC also offered some interesting and definitive second amendment commentary while living during the same period. Yeah the same Webster family as the famous dictionary by the same name. The Websters were real good about knowing and explaining what words mean, including the words of the second amendment about which they wrote more than a few words to clarify any issues of semantics about the right to keep and bear arms being the absolute right of the individual.

    • waltherppk says:

      Noah Webster understood the importance of the 2nd Amendment
      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
      related quotes source unknown:
      “An armed populace are citizens. An unarmed populace are subjects.”

      “A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. A Republic is two wolves and a well-armed sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”

      Noah Webster was known as the “Father of American Scholarship and Education,” Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment. He published “A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language” in 1806 and “An American Dictionary of the English Language,” published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard.

      Here are the words of the second amendment followed by the OFFICIAL dictionary analysis of those words meaning according to the meaning of the words as understood by LITERATE persons of that time AND as still understood by LITERATE persons today. Ignoramuses and LIARS may attach whatever meaning they like, as can tyrants and subversives, however this would be the correct and HONEST meaning of the words according to the language expert who wrote the OFFICIAL standard AMERICAN dictionary of the time. Plainly enough the proponents of “gun control” are illiterate fools and/or subversives who either need to learn to read and write and to get a dictionary. and/or they already understand and need to have a dictionary shoved down their throat by someone who can read and write and who fully well does understand the legal nature of the RIGHT recognized and protected by the second amendment which is a part of the constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

      The Second Amendment states, “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.”

      According to Webster for the meaning of words pertinent to understanding the second amendment with accuracy and specificity the following is applicable:

      “People” were “the commonality, as distinct from men of rank,” and “right” was “just claim; immunity; privilege.” “All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property,” he wrote.

      Thus in the language of Webster’s time, “the people” meant individuals and individuals have “rights.”

      “Keep” was defined as “To hold; to retain one’s power or possession; not to lose or part with … To have in custody for security or preservation”; “Bear” as “to carry” or “to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat”; and “Arms” were defined as “weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”

      Only civilians would “bear arms in a coat” — soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

      So the words “keep and bear arms” suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could “bear,” such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

      “Infringe” was defined by Webster as “to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance.”

      “Militia” was defined as “able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations” and “regulated” as “subject to rules or restrictions.” A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

      What about the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State?”

      “Necessary” was defined as “that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite”; “Security” as “protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind…” and “free” as “In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord.”

      “State” was defined as “A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government… .” A free state, we must conclude encompasses the entire body politic.

      During most of our history, an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

      It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, “the people” would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; “right” would mean governmental power; “keep” would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; “bear” would not mean carry; “arms” would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and “infringe” would not include prohibition.

      The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy-to-understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right. My note: ( What is the source I can’t recall but I have seen it stated that it was the founders’ deliberate intent that the wording chose to be used in writing the entire constitution was plain enough and simple enough language that any literate person having a fifth grade education could understand it and it would not be easily subject to subversion of its clear meaning by any deceivers for reason of its simple language ) Clearly we have seen many lawyers and lawmakers and judges who need to repeat the fifth grade.

      Modern contortions of language can’t change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

      excerpted and my comments added to source material from:

      Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. ( http://www.independent.org), is author of “The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins the Right to Bear Arms.”

      • jordan2222 says:

        Excellent.. thank you .

        • waltherppk says:

          Any time. Noah Webster really hits the nail squarely on the head, and authoritatively cuts through all the B.S. lies from the non-oath keeper, counter-American -revolutionary, constitutional oath-violating LIARS, so I reposted this truth and wisdom from Noah Webster in the Sunday open thread also. God Bless you Noah Webster, Patriots thank you for telling it like it is.

      • howie says:

        Clearly the communist left must get rid of the 2nd amendment to fulfill their dream. I think the key to saving the USA is to replace Boner with a T-Party Speaker.

    • canadacan says:

      Does that mean you disagree with the article or that you refuse to Clank your chains Or both

      • stellap says:

        I thought he meant, “No, I won’t be disarmed”, but I could be wrong.

        • howie says:

          Without collaboration by the GOP it can’t happen. For at least 2 years. Now is the time to stop them. Cut off the money flow no matter what the cost. That would do it.

      • akathesob says:

        None compliance. III

        • wag o' the western plains says:

          If any here are unfamiliar with the III Percent, here is their core philosophy:
          Doctrine of the Three Percent:

          “We will not disarm.
          You cannot convince us.
          You cannot intimidate us.
          You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
          But remember, we’ll shoot back.
          And we are not going away.
          Your move.”

          As the man said, if they get froggy, let ‘em watch what happens. ; )

  7. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    This is definitely an interesting and informative article. However; if we focus on the technical details of firearms technology, we will loose the political struggle and we will face forcible disarmament. Our choices then will be either submission to what might become far more than disarmament or violent resistance. We might end up in death camps. The environmentalists dogma’s embraced by the progressives dictate the need for a severe and rapid reduction in the Earth’s population. Refusing to believe that they are serious about these ideas is as idiotic as refusing to believe that Adolf Hitler was serious about the ideas he expressed in Nien Kompf. Before we choose the path that leads to a need for violent resistance, we need to contemplate the tactics that have proven to be effective by insurgencies around the world. Trying to go toe to toe against the police and modern military is the fast track to defeat. Targeting civilians, especially civilians who can be identified as the opposition can lead to victory. I for one would prefer to avoid such a scenario by winning this political debate.

    With this point understood, I would point out that arguing the technical details of firearms technology is an abysmally stupid and counterproductive tactic. Focusing our attention on the technical details of firearms will only confirm the stereotype so carefully crafted by the progressives that gun rights advocates are psychopaths who don’t care about children.

    Rather than talk about guns, let us talk about murderred children.

    According to the FBI, twenty-five thousand young children between the ages of one and eleven were murdered from 1980 through 2011. Only four thousand of these murderred children were killed with guns. The FBI data also reveals that an additional ten thousand infants were also murderred during these three decades. Almost none of them were killed with guns.

    The FBI data also reveals that infants and young children are seldom murdered by some psychopath living with his mother in a fortified house filled with guns. They are almost always murderred by either their mothers or their putative fathers or “acquaintances” (usually mothers’ boyfriends but often fathers’ girlfriends).

    Guns don’t kill infants and young children. Dysfunctional families kill infants and young children.

    The one factor that mitigates the risk of an infant or child being murderred is living in a household with a mom and a dad, preferably biological mother and father of the children, who are married to each other.

    The one, most obvious factor that puts children at risk of being murderred by their mothers, putative fathers, mothers’ boyfriends or fathers’ girlfriends is being Black.

    Historicly, Black people are five times as likely to murder their children as white people. The rate has declined in recent years so that Black people are only three times as likely to murder their children as White people.

    We need to focus the debate on these points, not firearms technology.

    • stellap says:

      So it’s okay to be disarmed, is it? I think everyone here knows by now what you think, and that’s good information too. It has nothing, however, to do with what our government is doing to disarm us.

      P.S.: I don’t think you even read this entire post. I don’t think you got the gist behind it.

    • Sharon says:

      There can be a variety of ways to approach any particular problem. There is not only one way to effectively discuss or dissect a specific issue. You’ve been pounding on these particular stats for weeks now…and there are probably some readers who find that very useful in particular ways.

      However, based on the last two paragraphs of your comment, I guess we need to take all guns away from black people who already have children and sterilize those who don’t, so that black people will stop murdering their children. And we need to get all blacks off police forces, or else take their sidearms away from them and put them on door-check duty.

      I don’t understand 90% of what Michelle has laid out, but I sure appreciate her ability to point out the flaws of understanding that are being used against us. Some of those who understand specifically what she has highlighted are going to make some highly effective use of the information, I suspect! :) Thanks for the great post, Michelle.

      • wag o' the western plains says:

        I’ve used reasoning along the lines Michelle has laid out for us here about action and function with my Fudd family. Under the proposed legislation, Daddy’s shotgun would be illegal or would cost a $200 tax stamp. Why, they wondered? Because it’s a ‘semi-automatic’ Browning A-5 12 guage. I explained the thingy that makes it subject to regulation is not that it holds five shells, that’s OK. It’s the design that after the first shell is shot and ejected, an new shell is loaded into the chamber. Feinstein wants to ban that.
        I was able to bring the conversation around to rifles that do that too, and why my rifle does not have wood on it; because wood is heavy, and I have a barrel shroud because I don’t like a burned hand. I also have a muzzle brake for recoil control. And magazines – why a person would need more than 10 rounds – convenience at the range, more than two or five or ten bad guys.
        Then we talked about the Constitution, and why the 2A was included…and why we even had a Constitution in the first place…which led back to the Declaration of Independence. The spreading awareness on their faces was priceless.

        • JeffK says:

          Actually, when they get to shotguns, any shotgun capable of taking a magazine extension for more than three rounds is subject to reguation, ie, Rem 870, 1187 and Winchester Model 12. When the original CA bill was being debated in 1989, the cities and counties passed their own assault weapons bans (despite state pre-emption) and these pump action shotguns were subject to the laws. And yes, duck hunter types were shocked at this development. This particular bill was passed in Santa Clara County (San Jose area).

      • canadacan says:

        That’s the point How to make highly effective use of the information and to maintain the second Amendment as it was intended By the foun. This is not going to be easy and it will it take her again and again and again This is an ongoing battle. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson constant vigilance is going to be needed we cannot rest we cannot relax In order to maintain and keep our special liberties and Freedoms.
        And yes I’m terrified because we have a monster in the White House.,
        I feel a bit like the punchline to a joke about General Custer Custer’s last stand. Where did all those f ing Indians come from. Out of apathy and ignorance we allow them to get into our government little bit by little bit
        They shall not pass I pray for our survival.

  8. Permission to repost @ the Market Ticker?

    • sundance says:

      certainly. Nothing posted at The Last Refuge is ever considered proprietary so long as it is used in advancement of Constitutional Principles.

      Feel free to re-post, all, parts or portions, of any post including your ability to edit and use the information to best suit your needs.

      Wolverines !

    • Michelle Hart says:

      Absolutely… Share at will…

  9. crossthread42 says:

    Premission to “repost” with credits to the Market Ticker?

  10. czarowniczy says:

    I’m brought back to how the Russians had a special village that Spetsnaz comms people had to retire to as their knowledge of comms and encryption systems made them a threat to the People due to their potential for exploitation. Back in the early 90s the Delta folks were co-opted to train FBI SWAT at Quantico. Some of the things the FBI asked to be taught made some nervous – e.g., room clearing. The Delta folk CLEAR a room, no survivors except for the hostage, if there is one. The FBI are supposed to use special care to make sure that deadly force is used judiciously and only when absolutely necessary, Ruby Ridge and Waco aside. Anywho, at a graduation ceremony an FBI talking head looked over at the assembled SF soldiers and opined how disturbed he was that people (military obviously) who were taught these things were allowed back out into civilian society. I’m waiting for the Washington slugs to start demanding political testing for military personnel who are unconventional warfare specialists as they are experts in operating in ‘hostile’ environments. Maybe Sam could start demanding they be housed in special closed-off cities – Newark, for example.

  11. Sam says:

    The real question is “Do you think your life is worth defending?” Are the lives of your wife and children worth defending? Diane Feinstein obviously thinks her life is worth defending since she holds a concealed weapons permit and has armed guards. Armed with guns, by the way, not with rocks or sticks or baseball bats. So if a rapist were to happen upon Miss Diane outside her home at night, she could defend herself. Yet she thinks that you, dear reader, should not be able to defend yourself from a rapist or mugger or authorities who would disarm you. You should calmly surrender your property and your life while hers is protected.

    Gun control is not about hunting or the type of gun or the caliber of ammunition. It’s not about saving lives; that’s just a convenient excuse to make the nasty medicine go down easier. It is about the complete control of the population by the State and its agents. Before they can rob you blind and kill you, they must render you defenseless. That’s what gun control is about.

    • stellap says:

      Well said.

    • WeeWeed says:

      +1000000000000

    • michellc says:

      I’ve lived in the sticks pretty much my entire life with a few off years. When my kids were little we lived 15 miles from town but due to the roads it was about a 30 minute trip to town.
      I was a stay at home Mom and there were times when my husband had to work nights and people often asked me, “aren’t you scared staying out there by yourself?” I’d always ask them why would I be scared. They’d always say, “what if someone broke in, the police would never be able to get there in time.” I’d always tell them, I have a dog outside and a dog inside and if they get by the dogs, I have a gun. The next question would always be, “could you really shoot someone and what if they get your gun?” My reply was always the same, “yes if my life or my children’s live depended on me shooting someone, I wouldn’t take it very well if I had to take a life, but I could do it if I had to. My Daddy taught me when I was a youngster to never point a gun at someone unless I intended to pull the trigger, so they would never get my gun.”

      My husband usually got the same questions posed to him about leaving me out in the sticks alone. He’d always tell them, heck she wakes up if she hears a leaf crunch, she can shoot just as well as me and would probably be up before me even if I was at home.

      I never was broke into and I never had to shoot someone. I had to load my gun a few times but people have a tendency to state their business or drive off when they see a Mama Bear with a gun. I never depended on the police and many times only depended on myself. I was never scared because knowing I could defend myself made me sleep easy at night.

      I won’t live in a country where I have to go to bed at night fearing the worst because I couldn’t defend myself. One thing those people were always right about, if I had to depend on the police and someone wanted to do us harm, me and kids would have been a statistic because they never would arrived in time.
      So I won’t give up my guns and if they start beating down doors and I have time, I will leave, haven’t quite figured out the where yet, but it is something for the first time in our lives we are seriously discussing.

      All of it is about control, it has never been about the guns, it’s about the government and like minded folks having total control.

  12. howie says:

    Prepare to repel boarders.

  13. Arkindole says:

    Interesting read over here
    http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/
    regarding the violent attitude of the left on the issue:

    “…Matthew H. writes:
    Their murderous rage (far exceeding the “hate” they constantly and falsely impute to us) is related to their proclaimed willingness to allow themselves to be killed rather than defend themselves. Both are rooted in the leftist’s fear of ever having to admit he is wrong. If he will reserve the right, even theoretically, as a last resort, to defend himself, he admits he has been wrong about guns, equality, human perfectibility—his whole world-view. Likewise, his barely suppressed and increasingly evident desire to kill sane people (or to have them killed in his name) is prompted by his inability to tolerate living, breathing refutations of his depraved dogmas.

    LA continues:
    I said liberals want to kill conservatives because they fail to conform to the liberal dogma; Matthew says liberals want to kill conservatives because conservatives are living refutations of the liberal dogma. That is deeper and gets closer to the truth. What Matthew is saying is that liberals feel that their structure of insane lies, on which their entire identity rests, is threatened by conservatives; that’s why conservatives must be killed.

    A natural correlation of this hatred is the fanatical desire to disarm us. I don’t know if this violent rage and hatred of the Right is as pronounced in Europe, for example, because the Right is toothless, disarmed, and entirely at the mercy of their Masters….”

  14. jordan2222 says:

    To cajunkelly and others;

    It is not uncommon for people with a lot of knowledge to also have a bit of an attitude. Michelle is an interesting such person, clearly an expert in arms but more importantly, knows how to apply that information in the context of the gun control bill AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

    I seriously doubt that most people in America truly believe the bill would essentially ban ALL weapons. That includes the Progs who wish it were so but do not have enough legal knowledge to understand HOW or WHY it will.

    I have already read debates from the uninformed who think they are experts, picking the bill apart as if there are “technical” loopholes in it. There are NO LOOPHOLES. Forget it. A gun is a gun is a gun. PERIOD.

    While Michelle may initially have come across to some folks as “holier/smarter or whatever, than thou,” she certainly got our attention and maybe that is why.

    No one likes a condescending, pompous “bitch,” especially a physically attractive one. I, too, was a bit offended at first and thought: Who the hell does she think she is?

    You cannot easily dispute anything she says. I bet almost everyone here will read every single word, especially if she “pissed you off” enough to try to find an issue on which to challenge her. That kind of close scrutiny of her article means one thing. We all probably learned more here in one stop than we would have at any other media source out there.

    Sundance would have never invited her to do this without thoroughly vetting her so I proclaim here to be the “real deal.” I previously nominated her to be our local resident expert. Will someone now second that?

    My summary of her article is: Yes they can and Yes, they will take our guns. That is the critical message and she expounds on it in intricate detail, a lot more than Sundance did in his original thread. How many of us here were skeptical when he made that post?

    • Michelle Hart says:

      Thank you so much..

      Honestly i really do try to not go crazy with this stuff but they don’t call me the Ice Queen for nothing…. I’m much to brutal, which is something I really do try to limit.

      • jordan2222 says:

        There are several different definitions and do not know where you fit in. So you can choose if you want to set the record straight.

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ice%20queen

        I sent the thread to a few female friends that I respect greatly. I received their replies.

        My reply to them was this:

        Given her knowledge, she must be involved in something that she cannot reveal. My opinion is that she is a weapons expert extraordinaire and has a thorough understanding of the Second Amendment. She knows that the language in that gun control bill means ALL guns will be banned.

        Here is her gravatar. Notice “dallas show girl.” She is “intriguing” but I don’t care. I learned more from this thread than I could ever find doing independent searches.

        http://en.gravatar.com/dallasshowgirl

        Everyone of us here is unique in our own way. We all different but yet we are the same. We are misfits that somehow fit. For now, that is all that matters.

    • ftsk420 says:

      I second it she does know her stuff no doubt about that.

  15. lovemygirl says:

    At first glance this appears to be a gun site with a wealth of information.
    http://www.guncite.com/

  16. ncobserver says:

    no, i will not be disarmed. at my age (53), and my physical condition (lupus/ra and possible gulf war syndrome – veteran of 1st gulf war), i have had enough. put me on the front line. i’m prepared to defend my rights.

  17. jsjavascript says:

    I thought I’d throw this in as well

  18. Obamao says:

    Good essay. Definition of direct/indirect was novel though.

    Bottom line – Nazi Pelosi bill is to outlaw all arms?

    • jordan2222 says:

      You said: Definition of direct/indirect was novel though.

      What do you mean by “novel?”

      Yes to your question about outlawing all arms but the bill is attributed to Feinstein in name only.

  19. Mustang380gal says:

    The Brown Bess was a muzzle loading, single shot, smooth bore barrel long gun capable of taking a triangular bayonet. I have no doubt that the bayonet potential will be enough for them to ban the musket, but it is not an “open bolt” design. It has a hammer, but no “bolt”. They were flintlock, and the British Army had no “Aim” command, since it was fired with the face turned away so the shooter was not burned by the flash. “Flash in the pan” comes from a flintlock firearm, by the way.

    We might be left with some revolvers, single action Army, at best, then when some idiot uses it for a crime that will be gone, too.

    We are in a seriously bad position. I don’t have much hope of it ending well, at least without a long and bitter fight. April 19, 1775 is happening all over again. Dianne Feinstein is in Gen. Thomas Gage’s position. I just hope there are enough like Isaac Davis, Captain Parker, Hezekiah Wyman and the other brave men (and women) who thought enough of their Liberty to commit treason against the Crown.

    • howie says:

      Well that sure is logical. For example. Suppose they have a great success. They get all so-called assault weapons. Logically the next Lanza will use a non-assault weapon because it is all there is available.. Ban that? Then the next and so on. In the end, zero guns and no constitution. This is not about assault weapons. It is about a tyrannical state.
      Now I know why they are called progressives. The progress as they ruin one thing after another.

    • JeffK says:

      We have friends in the House and Senate. My experience is that when you send them some useful information that helps argue against gun control, they love to get it and will forward it to other like-minded individuals. The video of Diane Feinstein saying how she relied on a gun for self-protection is priceless. Tell your elected officials how we should expand that so that teachers can also carry concealed. Remember, the Connecticutt shooter was challenged three times by unarmed staff at the school and there even a .22 derringer would have been better than what they had. The problem is gun control, not guns. Don’t ban guns, ban gun-free zones.

  20. lovemygirl says:

    Ran into this video:

    • jordan2222 says:

      That is one of my all time favorites. She covers the entire issue if you watch it to the very end.

      4:12 mark addresses so called “assault” weapons

  21. William Tuttle says:

    Greetings, and God bless.

    Excellent article! Big picture is indeed the issue for us now that the subject of gun control laws, after a long and unlamented absence, is emerging into the public arena again. This time it’s different I think. I get a sense of end-game in the air and I’m not alone in this. There are, however, people on our side, perfectly rational and reasonable people who nevertheless don’t read it that way. I hope they’re right, but I see an element of denial in their understanding of the situation. For example, I posted the following observations on a firearms blog the other day:

    “Greetings and God bless.

    For the last several years the democrats and other proponents of a government monopoly on force have been very reluctant to even bring up the subject of gun control, let alone push for it. It has been a losing proposition politically for them, but given the current political configuration in DC and the country in general, I think that is about to change. I’ve been prowling around in the web, looking at the progressive side of things and my gut is telling me that the gun-control camp has decided that this nightmare in Connecticut is the issue upon which they are going to make their stand. The President has momentum, the Republicans in the House are disorganized, shell-shocked and dis-oriented by the all-out assault from the left on the economic front and of course the media is doing everything in its very considerable power to assist the left in keeping them off balance and in retreat. Now they are going to enthusiastically load Connecticut on top of all that. They will tell the world that not only do we, the conservative, free-market oriented people of America want to destroy children, the elderly, minorities and the poor by eliminating food stamps, health care, social security and Medicare in order to give all the people’s money to their rich friends, but now we want to facilitate baby-killers by supplying them with automatic weapons. I think Connecticut is the position from which the left is going to mount the all-out final assault on the possession of firearms. The onslaught is coming. There will be no quarter. As the British swept Washington out of New York at the Battle of Brooklyn, we may be swept out of DC in the coming assault on the 2nd Amendment. Our stand will have to be made in the State Legislatures, the Counties and the Sheriff’s Offices. Get ready.”

    I received this reply from a blog participant who calls himself, “EM”:

    “I wouldn’t worry too much. We had plenty of mass shootings (Virginia Tech for instance) back when both houses and the presidency were held by the Democrats. Plenty of insane gun control bills are introduced every single year, but never make it out of committee. Hell, an actual congress person got shot and nothing happened.”

    I thought about that for a while. It seemed to me that there might be a little tunnel-vision involved in EM’s perception of the issue. Gun control isn’t merely a bunch of hoplophobes pathetically trying to assuage their irrational fears through the legislative process. What we are facing isn’t a discreet, single-issue problem. Gun control is a sub-set of several parallel and interconnected threads and If EM has a case of tunnel-vision that isn’t letting him take that into account, then perhaps it was because I hadn’t really made that explicit in my original post. I tried to remedy that in my response:

    “Greetings, and God bless.
    Hello, EM.
    True, ever since the Clinton administration, gun control legislation has failed to gain traction, and if the current crop of House Republicans will stick to their guns then maybe further attempts to erode the 2nd Amendment will continue to die in committee. But there will be far more going on here than just a fight over gun control. A sea change is now under way, a ramping up to the next level of combat in the collectivist war on American liberty. For the last sixty years and more there has been ongoing in America, and the West in general, a quiet, slow-motion Bolshevik style revolution. Most of it, until recently, has consisted of silent but effective battlefield preparation and that work is essentially complete. The several different and seemingly unrelated threads of the Gramsciian “long march through the cultural institutions of the west” are coming together. The entrenchment of the current administration marks the perfection of the processes that Lenin referred to as “pressure from above, pressure from below” (“top down, bottom up” for those familiar with Glenn Becks analysis of this subject). The grassroots revolutionaries, over decades, have built up the “mass organizations” necessary for successful revolution (this is what Lenin meant when he stated the need to establish small, highly trained and motivated cadres of professional revolutionaries controlling masses of useful idiots). They are mature and in place, ready to be folded into a “united front”. The revolutionaries have now established control of the Executive Branch and they have constructed arbitrary executive mechanisms under the supervision of “czars” which are operating parallel with, and independent of legitimate Constitutional entities. These revolutionaries have reached down to link with the grassroots revolutionaries. The “top down, bottom up” command and control structure is now integrated and operational. The collectivist social structures that are intended to be the alternative to the collapsing traditional institutions of American society are in place. The educational mechanisms for shaping hearts and minds are in place and operating. The media-based tools for manipulating the public understanding of reality are in place and operating. The order of battle is established. The deployment of assets is complete. All that remains is to pull the trigger. And that will be done in response to a “crisis”. Most likely multiple and coordinated crisis.

    It is within this context that Connecticut drops into their laps. The circumstances are qualitatively and quantitatively different than those surrounding any previous attempts at gun control legislation. Any such attempt in the current period will not be a stand-alone project. It will be a tactical move in a broader strategic action, and I expect that action to unfold between now and the 2014 election. Politically, the correlation of forces is optimal for the left at this moment. All the metrics are in their favor. As they see it now, we, the defenders of the Founders Republic, and the institutions available for us to work through, are disorganized, in flux, dis-oriented, discouraged, pulled in several different directions at once, increasingly isolated, separated from a support base and in general mismatched against an enemy that has raised the art of political warfare to an exact science. They are very good at it. We are not. They believe that they have structured the political battlefield so effectively that essentially, all that remains for them to do is reduce the enemy in detail, but they know this strategic situation will not remain static indefinitely. The outcome of the 2014 elections, in all probability, will be less than desirable from their standpoint. They have every reason to believe that the time to push their revolution to the next level is now. So, in light of all this, what are the odds that the current and upcoming crop of House Republican will “stick to their guns” while standing at the focus of a white hot media spotlight, drenched in the blood of Connecticut’s children?

    So, EM, I sure hope you’re right, but I fear that the next push for gun control is going to be orders of magnitude different that any that has come before.

    I’m not trying to be discouraging or defeatist here. I speak of the collectivist perception of the situation. I’m not being Pollyanna here either. That perception, in too many ways, is dangerously close to the truth and we have to understand, and own that. My discussion is also framed in terms of political combat as opposed to physical conflict. Can this Marxist revolution go hot? Absolutely, but while pushing things to the limit so as to maintain momentum, the revolutionaries need to keep it just short of a shooting war, because that, of course, would change everything.

    Which is an entirely different discussion altogether.”

    • howie says:

      To make a long story short…the fact you have to have the discussion, exposes the the fact that there is a problem. I think. There is genuine fear of the government afoot. That is not good. When the constitution can not be counted on trouble is ahead.

      • jordan2222 says:

        William Tuttle

        Welcome to the Tree House. You have said more than a mouthful here that fits right into our discussion. I am anxious to hear more. Climb onto a limb and fire at will.

    • Sharon says:

      Thank you for sharing this portion of the discussion here….find yourself a branch with a view to your liking if you’d care to. Welcome….

  22. John McLachlan says:

    In the UK, there exists a mechanism for private individuals to bring a private prosecution of someone, for criminal charges, rather than civil charges, when the state does not prosecute them, for any reason, such as insufficient evidence.
    Private prosecutions are very rare. Only a few, per century.
    Is there any comparable mechanism for private prosecution in the USA?
    Could a private US citizen bring a prosecution of an individual, such as a lawmaker, who had violated their oath of office and was acting in the manner of a domestic enemy of the Constitution, when the state had refused to do so?
    Even if the charge was dismissed, the publicity given to the supporting evidence may influence the general public.
    If such charges could be brought against every lawmaker who had attached their name to proposed unconstitutional legislation, then at least lawmakers would understand that they were risking charges of treason, should they ever find themselves in the minority.
    Lawmakers would be confronted with the knowledge that they risked more than mere loss of elected office.
    I believe that even supporters of gun-control acknowledge to themselves that it violates the US Constitution. Many of these supporters probably consider it inconceivable that the US could suffer the same tyranny that others have, historically, after the citizens are disarmed. Some supporters of gun-control, probably do not think that that is inconceivable, in the slightest.
    The general public would also have to admit, to themselves at least, that they were either, supportive of the Constitution or, even secretly, an enemy of the Constitution and supportive of its abolition.
    Michelle Hart’s article makes perfectly plain that the proposed legislation will be worded in such manner as to allow the prohibition of private ownership of practically all firearms.
    She may consider condensing the article to a series of easily digested sound-bites, for more widespread dissemination.
    When the issues are placed starkly before people, they will be unable to evade, honestly, their choice of loyalty to one side or the other.

    • JeffK says:

      its called ‘misprision of a felony’ and it is actually a lively topic in some circles. however, the hurdle is getting such a case past the “frivolous test” the judge makes in order to let the case go to trial. However, there does exist the other avenue of public officials acting outside their minsterial duties which in turn is outside their soveriegn immunity protection. At the state level “False arrest” and “Abuse of Process” are two more well known applications of this theory. These two are usally invoked in criminal actions but the premise is applicable beyond criminal prosecution. Another big law is USC 1873 which makes violation of constituional rights a cause for federal civil action against the offending official. This law is big business for the civil rights ‘industry’ in the US.

  23. JeffK says:

    FWIW – how the assault weapons ban worked in CA in 1989 after Pat Purdy shot up the Cleveland Elementary school – the law was not quite as broad but broad enough that a lot of popular guns got caught up in the bill. Then what happened was that everyone came in who could represent their own little piece of the gun world and they negotiated to get out of the bill. So what happened was that in the end, only those guns that did not have an effective lobbying group got left in the bill. So the SKS with 10 shot detachable magazine was banned while the Mini-14 was not.

    My advice would be to get behind some kind of bill that banned gun-free zones and allow teachers to carry concealed. Or another one would be to recognize a legal presumption that if you use some kind of authority to enforce a gun-free zone, ie, can’t bring guns to work, then you are responsible/liable/etc for those affected. I heard an attorney is suing the state of Connecticutt for failure to provide reasonable protection for one of the survivors. This is along those lines and should be something we could support and stop debating guns and go after the real problem – gun control.

  24. rimfrel says:

    I think it wastes time to consider the constitutionality (specifically, the lack thereof) of any kind of gun ban. O’care is unconstitutional, and the best we could have hoped for was to have it struck down by the SCOTUS before it could go into effect. If the case(s) that challenge the gun ban do not reach the SCOTUS before the ban occurs and guns are taken away from private owners, then even if the law is set aside, the guns are still gone, the gun stores are largely gone, and the government will drag its heels on pretending to do any restitution. The gun ban has to be specifically defeated. Aside from contacting Congresspersons, I don’t know what else to do.

    I am also concerned by the attention given to the mental health facet of the Newtown shooting. I was in Connecticut at the time and thought it the very definition of insanity to ignore the facts and (as Einstein said) keep trying to use the same methods (gun-free zones and gun control) to prevent such acts. It doesn’t work, so do more of it, and hope for better results? Feinstein is no Einstein, obviously. And even as media outlets are decrying pro-gun spokespeople as being insane? It isn’t that we have perfect or imperfect mental health care, or even perfect or imperfect methods for determining who is an intelligent/responsible gun owner. Nothing is ever perfect, and so there is always a gap that can be focused on to insist on more control, more government interference. Not only does Feinstein’s bill try to make all guns illegal, but it wouldn’t surprise me if later legislation restricts gun ownership from the insane, to be followed by the American Psychiatric Association defining “hoplophilia” as a dangerous mental condition, to be treated with thorazine and electroshock.

    Catch 10.22 — if you’re insane, you cannot own a gun, and if you want to own a gun, you must be insane.

    There are usually multiple solutions to any problem. Gun control won’t prevent more shootings. Armed guards in schools will help, but won’t be 100% effective. Homeschooling might be even more effective, especially if the homeschooling parents put NRA stickers on the doors, windows, and car bumpers.

    I would vote with my feet if I knew where to go.

    • WeeWeed says:

      There is no law that will stop a random nut – they know that, but that’s not the point. The point is control.

      • akathesob says:

        Exactly! Every bit about control. Something about a armed hunter that can drop a large beast at a 100 or so yards with one shot seems to instill fear within the beastly criminals roaming free upon a once sleeping Nation…

  25. Pingback: “A Convenient Excuse To Make The Nasty Medicine Go Down Easier” | LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar – OH!

  26. Pingback: PREPARE TO BE DISARMED | A Nation In Peril

  27. JAS says:

    Excellent post Michelle. I like fired up! The way I see it is that the powers that be in government want the citizens to only be able to own arms that are obsolete by any military standards. Correct me if I’m wrong….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s