TexasCHLforum.com

It all starts with guns. Liberals hate the idea of you having guns for two reasons. The first is the fact that guns are the tools of free men, and when you have them you have the dignity that comes with the ability to protect your lives and your rights. They want to strip you of that dignity both because doing so will humiliate you and show you who is really the boss, and because they enjoy rubbing your uppity rube noses in your own powerlessness. But of course, you aren’t powerless yet, because regardless of their ridiculous lies about how an armed citizenry can’t possibly pose a military threat to a leftist dictatorship, they know very well that as long as you have your weapons you will never be their slaves.

Once your Second Amendment rights are gone, do you think the liberals will suddenly decide to be more respectful of your First Amendment rights? Or do you think they will accelerate their campaign to strip you of the civil rights that remain the last obstacle to their total control?

Jeff B. wrote:I think it's a mixed bag, you've got your true believers that really and honestly see the Constitution as a relic from bygone days and fervently believe that it needs to be done away with. In favor, of course of their Progressive-Transnational government worshipping society.
Jeff B.

cirus wrote:The time is coming when you will have to make a decision. Do you want to live as a slave or a free man. If you choose the latter then it will mean fighting and possibly dying. I won't live in a world without my freedom.

The bottom line is that there are, and rightly so, limits to free speech. Those limits in general are, in our country and our time*, set at the point where someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated. The classic “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” says it more succinctly and less abstractly.

Think about that. The limits of free speech are the point at which someone else’s rights are in imminent danger of being violated.

You see where I’m going now, right?

This is a very clear logical path to prosecuting anti-gun people. Those that object to this logic either don’t regard being able to keep and bear arms as a “real right” or they are being logically inconsistent with those limits to free speech in existing law.

I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read enough court rulings to know that judges will almost always give at least lip service to logic. They may have to fabricate a logic scaffolding that only Rube Goldberg could admire but they will rule in a “logical” manner.

A logically consistent case can, and should, be made that advocating for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is no different than advocating for riots and lynching. People can and do die because they were denied their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It is directly foreseeable that people will be injured because of people abusing their right to free speech.

The logic in my example is far, far less torturous that hundreds of court rulings. It could happen.

What I am trying to do with my “That will come up at your trial,”** quip is to change the culture such that it becomes possible to regard the deliberate infringement of other rights as a punishable offense. Yes, it’s sort of twisted in that I am advocating the restriction of one right to protect another right. It is not “twisted” in the sense that restricting the right to some sorts of speech it does not put people in danger of life or serious bodily harm such as restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms does.

Of course no judge today, or probably even ten years from now, will rule in such a manner. But I want the seeds planted. I want people to ask, “Why aren’t these people violating the law?” “Why aren’t these people being prosecuted?” I want the anti-gun people to pause and think about it.

I want to see the day, perhaps 20 years from now, when people are brought to trial for the crimes they are committing today. By the advocating the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they caused the foreseeable, needless, injuries and deaths of tens of thousands and they should be brought to justice for that.

imkopaka wrote:One of our members here has a signature line (I can't remember which one, and I think he said it's a quote from his son?) that goes:
"Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second."
I like that quote.

Jusme wrote:

imkopaka wrote:One of our members here has a signature line (I can't remember which one, and I think he said it's a quote from his son?) that goes:
"Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second."
I like that quote.

That's me, my son did not come up with that, nor was it mine originally,but I don't recall where I first read it.

This is exactly how every Socialist dictatorship, has gone about turning people into sheep. Disarm them, restrict free speech, religious choice, and the freedom to gather together. Once that is accomplished, any undesirable are eliminated, and history is rewritten.

Liberty wrote:I appreciate the irony and love watching the slime squirm, but we shouldn't find database collection by Homeland Security acceptable for either gun owners Journalist or bloggers.