Bill Davis
Posts:380
 |
| 25 Dec 2010 11:33 PM |
�
|
I want to offer this up for consideration relative to the governmental assumption of states rights, and even the rights of individuals, both directly and by extension, and though I try very hard to have faith in the system, Mr Quinn makes frightening sense. I got this from his website, WWW.Gunblasts.com, and it is his dissertation, with no input or editing from myself, and in it's entirety. Examine it and see if you think that the process the Union took relative to the rights of the States has a resounding thread in it's activities relative to our rights now. Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
The Schoolyard Bully and "Assault Weapons"
by Jeff Quinn
September 15, 2004
Most of us can relate to the schoolyard bully
in one way or another. We either were abused by this individual or knew
someone who was. Perhaps you yourself were the schoolyard bully in times past.
Anyway, most of us are familiar enough with the type that we can use him as a
good analogy to our government.
We can imagine going out on the playground as a child to
enjoy a break from the boredom of learning the proper order of the alphabet,
with or without the little tune, or of reading about places which we would
never see, even if we cared to. Heading out on the playground for our precious
few minutes of fun, we can imagine being suddenly confronted by this snaggle-toothed
goon, getting punched in the eye and relieved of our lunch money. If this
happened only once, it would be bad enough; but you know the type. Bullies
don’t operate that way. If they get you once, and get away with it, they
continue for as long as they can.
Every day, the same scenario plays out: You head out on the
playground, minding your own business, but are accosted by the bully. After
awhile, you just hand him the lunch money. You adapt. You learn to try to
carry extra money in your shoe, hoping that he doesn’t know that you have
it. You start to feel as if you have somehow gotten over on him, because you
got to keep a little bit of your money for yourself. You are glad that he
doesn’t hit you every time anymore. Sometimes he just takes the money and
lets you run away.
After ten years of the same thing, let’s imagine that the
bully stops assaulting you. He is still there, with the threat and power to
start up again at any time, but now he just glares at you and lets you pass
by, if you will ask his permission. Suddenly, you feel relieved; even
victorious! Never mind that for ten long years, this scum beat, robbed, and
humiliated you…..every single day. You are just grateful that it is over; so
grateful that you thank him. As you approach his position, you ask his
permission to continue on your way, and thank him for letting you pass without
harm.
Kids deal with stuff like this all the time.
As gun owners, we also deal with it every day, without
realizing it. Our government has for the past ten years banned us from
owning the weapons that we want, for whatever reason. Calling them
"Assault Rifles", making these inanimate objects seem evil, and
banning the manufacture of new "high capacity" magazines. The
government set the arbitrary limit of ten rounds for our magazines. Before
1994, "high capacity magazines" were those that held 100 rounds,
such as the excellent Beta Mag. Thirty round AR magazines were normal
capacity, as were fifteen-shot pistol magazines. It did not matter at all that
magazine capacity has never played a role in the success or failure of a
criminal act. The government declared them to be evil, so they were banned.
Like the lunch money in our shoe in the analogy above, we were happy that we
could keep our "pre-ban" magazines, along with flash suppressors and
bayonet lugs. Because things such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs looked
evil to some elitist thugs in Washington, they were banned. It wasn’t that
anyone had ever been bayoneted in the commission of a crime, or that evil had
prevailed because the criminal's flash signature from an AR-15 had foiled his
capture.
Let us be clear as to the reason for the "Assault Weapons
Ban" in the first place. The government was attempting to ban an entire
class of rifles. They stole the term "assault rifle", using it to
declare these legal rifles as an evil that must be eliminated from possession
by common citizens. The term was used not only to polarize those who
owned no guns against gun owners, but to divide gun owners, turning the
"reasonable" deer hunter against the Neanderthals who wanted to own
such evil weapons. They succeeded. In their narrow-minded reasoning, if they
banned bayonet lugs, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and "high
capacity" magazines, they could eliminate an entire class of legal
semi-automatic rifles.
When the gun manufacturers complied with the law, leaving
off the lugs and flash suppressors, and shipping the guns with compliant
magazines, the liberal elitist government officials cried "Foul!",
condemning the gun makers as those who circumvented the law, when they were
only complying with the law.
Anyway, after ten years of living under the "Assault
Weapons Ban", it was allowed to go away by a few good men in our Congress
who blocked the bill to renew the ban from coming to a vote. If it had come to
a vote, it stood a good chance of renewal, because of the many elected
representatives who are still waiting on their backbone transplant. Many would
have voted to renew the ban who claim to be the gun owner’s friend. Keep in
mind that the bill was passed into law in 1994 by many of these same
legislators.
Now, like the little kid on the playground, gun owners are
grateful that the bill was allowed to sunset. We are thankful to the bully for
not hitting us in the eye anymore. We still have to ask his permission to buy
a gun, and are thankful when we quickly pass a government background check. We
feel privileged to get our "permit" to carry a weapon, just like the
little kid being granted permission to go play without being assaulted.
The carry permit is our permission from the bully to exercise our God-given
right to self protection. We still must ask his blessing to purchase, carry,
and use our guns, but we are grateful to him for no longer prohibiting us from
owning the very same firearms and accessories that he stole from us for ten
years.
The bully is still hitting us in the eye, we just don‘t
feel it anymore.
Jeff Quinn |
|
| What can go wrong? Just a sec, I gotta bait this hook.. |
|
|
twerth
Posts:3865
 |
| 26 Dec 2010 05:21 AM |
�
|
good one. like it |
|
| US ARMY (RET)
VN VET |
|
|
rthomas4
Posts:2331
 |
| 26 Dec 2010 08:38 AM |
�
|
Pretty accurate!!! |
|
| NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, DU, NWTF, QDMA, Everyday Hunter,OYOA, ASAdspalliance,D& DH, and PROUD SC redneck REBEL for life. If the South had won the war, Obama wouldn't be in the White House. |
|
|
Bill Davis
Posts:380
 |
| 02 Jan 2011 09:24 PM |
�
|
yup, I thought so, I for one like this guys take. |
|
| What can go wrong? Just a sec, I gotta bait this hook.. |
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 10 Jan 2011 08:31 AM |
�
|
Papers and wires on this date in 1861 throughout the nation were hot with reports that yesterday, 9 Jan., 1861, the state of Mississippi, the wealthiest of States in the Union passed its own ordinance of secession! The MS Congressional delegation, lead by its favorite son, Jefferson Davis, declared the results of the vote and would be a part of the U.S. Congress no more. Mississippi was itself the wealthiest State in 1861 and had a very good education system, with several military schools. With its costal ports and long border to the vital Mississippi River commerce was especially good in MS and its larger cities such as Vicksburg were wealthy and enjoyed easy trade with Northern businesses. In fact, Vicksburg and other such trade centers in the State were not at all pleased to be forced into a state of animosity with the source of much of their wealth. Vicksburg was, for the most part, pro-Union as the State seceded.
News today began ringing out across the Nation that the State of Florida, in a Talahassee convention vote of 62 to 7, overwhelmingly elected to pass its own ordinance of secession from the Union, declaring itself a free and sovereign nation. Celebrations erupted in towns and cities across the State and on the following day the delegation held a ceremony on the State’s capital steps to formally sign the ordinance. Some ladies, in a rapid act heated by patriotic feelings quickly designed and sewed a new flag which was presented to the Governor at the State capitol on 11 Jan., 1861. It was similar to the US flag except it had no blue field and the stripes were alternated red, white and blue. The field was white and had 3 large stars, one for each of the newly freed States, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida. Sewn across the top of the blank field with 3 stars was the statement: “THE RIGHTS OF THE SOUTH AT ALL HAZARDS!”
 |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 12 Jan 2011 09:58 AM |
�
|
On 11 Jan., 1861, Alabama passed its own ordinance of secession in a vote of 61-39. In the days before the vote, the delegates expected the outcome that received on the 11th and had quietly collected some AL militia cannon to the the statehouse where the vote was to be held. As soon as the vote was taken, and the results known, the word was shouted out of the building and the cannons which had already been loaded with blank charges roared the new to the city and great cheers went up all across the city. News spread like wildfire as telegraph wires and riders raced the news across AL and into the rest of the country. The news was published in the "Harper's Weekly" and other newspapers the next day. This issue was more hotly contested in AL than in the previous 3 states to have seceded, but there was no doubt that the AL delegates passed the ordinance with the will of AL. On the same day that the ordinance was passed, ladies presented a 2-sided blue flag to the delegation. One side had “Lady Liberty” standing with a flag saying “ALABAMA” in her left hand held aloft and a drawn sword held downward in her right hand. Above her was sewn the statement: “INDEPENDENT NOW AND FOREVER”. On the reverse was a sewn cotton and serpent with the Latin motto: “NOLI ME TANGRE” (Touch Me Not”). AL’s ordinance went further to invite delegates of the other seceded States as well as other Slave-states to meet their delegates at Montgomery, AL on 4 Feb., 1861 for the purpose to discussing entering into a confederation “for our common peace and security.”

 |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
holly
Posts:2228
 |
| 12 Jan 2011 11:47 AM |
�
|
Like reading this Shiloh |
|
|
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 08:24 AM |
�
|
On 18 Jan., 1861 a test-vote in Georgia was held to determine what still needed to be done to pass an ordinance of secession in the State. The vote was solidly pro-secession, so the ordinance was finalized and the official vote was held at the State House on 19 Jan. News on the 20th raced all across the States, seceeded and united that the entire "Deep-South" was united in secession. What had begun with South Carolina had been completed across the Deep South as of tis date and the rise of a viable Confederacy had been born with seceeded States connected, border to border from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. Georgia was the 2nd largest State east of the Mississippi, only slightly smaller than Virginia. It had a very good rail system that spoked from Atlanta, a large wealthy inland city. It had a coast directly on the Atlantic with good ports, and had easy river connection to the Gulf of Mexico as well. There was no doubt as of this date on either side of the arguement that the seceeded States did not intend to come back peaceably to the Union.
GEORGIA ORDINANCE OF SECESSION
We the people of the State of Georgia in Convention assembled do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained that the ordinance adopted by the State of Georgia in convention on the 2nd day of Jany. in the year of our Lord seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the constitution of the United States of America was assented to, ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the general assembly of this State, ratifying and adopting amendments to said constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated.
We do further declare and ordain that the union now existing between the State of Georgia and other States under the name of the United States of America is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Georgia is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.
|
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
Bill Davis
Posts:380
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 11:07 AM |
�
|
You know, I keep coming back to something, as I am sure so many of us have... The states had right to leave the Union, if I know my Constitution correctly, was the driving force of the North to violate this States' Rights issue based on economy alone, or was there some sort of military reason that they wanted a larger continent? There must have been something that made the Union think that they had some right to force something that so many agree was not within their rights to enforce?? What were they thinking? Is there anything in the public record? Would things go the same way today, with the Union (which now would consist of fewer states) still try to rope in the old South (pretty much the same states) and the West (pretty much the rest, minus Kalifornia, Washington perhaps, and Oregon for sure) if all this happened again? Would they risk open war to do it? |
|
| What can go wrong? Just a sec, I gotta bait this hook.. |
|
|
Bill Davis
Posts:380
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 11:25 AM |
�
|
I mean, I GET the slavery issue, but it was largely economy, the lip service paid by the politicians (many of whom OWNED slaves) was in my thought largely because they did not want to get caught SAYING it was about economy.. Am I missing something?? I surely do not want to go back to the days of slavery (though we are not far from it now), and I do not want anyone to be placed into a submission situation (outside of chain gangs for criminals) but as much as it ranks my ire, the rights of the States were given to the States. The original unabridged Constitution even made concessions for owning of slaves! I know the Amistad incident lent a lot of fuel, but that was more about commerce of slaves, and it got lumped into the anti-slavery speech of the time (and may well have initialized some of the pre-Civil War political action in Washington, I think). |
|
| What can go wrong? Just a sec, I gotta bait this hook.. |
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 01:26 PM |
�
|
"Union" meant something different back then to the people. They had recently come through wars united as one to defend themselves against major European powers. But, the larger States in the South and even thhe old west had many people that lived their entire lives without leaving their States' borders or having much contact with foreigners (those from other States) so these people though more self-reliantly than the New Englanders who crossed borders and dealt with eachother daily. The idea of any State breaking the Union to the Yankees was a mortal sin as they saw the union as concrete. The South saw things as much as we today do with the U.N., that is, a bunch of sovereign countries all united in a common goal, but in the end each State was a State unto itself. And yes, the economic problems were the biggest issue, but slavery was the intertwinging issue that affected it as well as virtually all other issues that caused problems between the factions. It was sort of like illegal immigration today. And no, there would be no war today. Those people that would stick with the Federal cause do not like those of us that would seceede enough to want us back anyway and on top of that they do not have the fortitude to fight. What I wonder is, can the various States force any other State out? That is an interesting querry since 48 States would love to force Kalifornication out before it drags the rest into the gutter.  |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
Lunkerdog
Posts:899
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 04:28 PM |
�
|
I wonder what effect it would have on Washington if just the rumblings of secession started to get any traction in any of the states Houses, or Senates? I believe they would have to start paying attention. Seeing the effect of the Tea party movement on Washington, I have to believe that a Secession Movement would really shake things up on the Hill.
|
|
 |
|
|
TOM IN TENNESSEE
Posts:1334
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 06:26 PM |
�
|
We don't necessarily need a Secessionist movement ....just enuff States to band together and demand a Constitutional Convention....that would scare the bejeejus out of the professinal politicians! Shi, please email me that pic of the Alabama Flag! thanks! |
|
| Soddy Daisy Tennessee USA,
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone
PROUD PRO STAFFER--www.heirloomgamecalls.com, hand made , hand tuned and hand tested, Hunt ARK ducks with www.smackinquack.com
I am an uncompensated, non-attorney spokesperson |
|
|
Bill Davis
Posts:380
 |
| 20 Jan 2011 07:11 PM |
�
|
I keep hearing those sorts of rumblings, but I don't know how much is urban legend and how much is just posturing for the purpose of the performers trying to gain local votes. It is pretty hard to determine if those in states other than the one in which I live are seriously interested in getting things done, or if they are just giving lip service. |
|
| What can go wrong? Just a sec, I gotta bait this hook.. |
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 21 Jan 2011 08:03 AM |
�
|
"Secession" was being openly discussed about a year ago in several States, including my own, TN. This was due to the fact that the Federal Gov't was ramming through so many un-Constitutional laws over the loud objections of the People and showed itself unwilling to consider any option other than its own. Well, there is currently no open talk of it because we have had another Revolution, at the ballot box. Back in 1993 and early 1994 we were hearing the same things. Remember the many militias? I was helping outfit some in the Mid-TN area then as I was working at a large outdoors-goods store and dealt with the militia types daily. I believe we were one incident away from open civil war back then in my area and many other areas. But, the "1994 Republican Revolution" put an end to that, except the idjits Nichols and McVey "didn't get the memo."   The talk pops up from time to time though, which is not new. States talked about it every few years before the Civil War, and have talked about it from time to time ever since. Like President Davis stated after the war, while imprisoned I think, "a question settled by force of arms must forever remain unresolved" or something like that. |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
Lunkerdog
Posts:899
 |
| 21 Jan 2011 11:12 AM |
�
|
Also when we think of secession as Americans we tend to have the knee-jerk reaction to immediately think of North and South. I have a feeling the the lines drawn in the sand would look much different today. It would be a fractured situation with the Northeast and the far West being isolated. Sadly it would seem that the majority of Minnesotans just don't get it yet. Although we did oust 36 year Rep Jim Oberstar(D) from my district in the last election. The rest of the state elected Mark Dayton(D) as our Governor who was the worst US Senator we've had in recent history.  There is some hope though, it was a recounted election, and I'm pretty sure if Tim Pawlenty(R) had decided to stay in office he would have been re-elected. It's the metro areas that kill us. When you get into the Northern urban areas the opinions/beliefs are much different. |
|
 |
|
|
rthomas4
Posts:2331
 |
| 21 Jan 2011 12:15 PM |
�
|
Lunker, it's the same down here. In my part of the state, where whites are the minority, the Dems always win, thankfully the upper part of the state is mostly white, and the GOP carries that larger more metropolitan area, thus they usually carry the state and national elections. Unfortunately, down here, we get stuck with all democrats and any black that runs for local office. |
|
| NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, DU, NWTF, QDMA, Everyday Hunter,OYOA, ASAdspalliance,D& DH, and PROUD SC redneck REBEL for life. If the South had won the war, Obama wouldn't be in the White House. |
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 31 Jan 2011 11:43 AM |
�
|
The 34th Star added:
On 29 Jan., 1861, following long months of debates largely centering over the slavery issue, the Federal Gov't admitted the territory of Kansas into the United States as its 34th State. This vote was of course taken minus the legislators of the seceeded States which, accoridng to the Federal arguement, were still a part of the Federal Union no matter what the seceeded States thought. The lack of their votes hence should have stopped the admission of Kansas if the Federal Gov't really believed that the seceeded States were supposed to be there, but the admission of Kansas insured another United State on the side of the taxed and represented States in the Federal Gov't at the critical time of January and February, 1861. The admission of KS also gave a jolt of patriotic morale boosting to the pro-Union sympathies while also acting as a slap in the faces of the slave-holding States that had not seceeded.
The National Flag was to carry 33 Stars for several months before 34-star versions appeared, and both styles remained in service throughout the War. |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|
TOM IN TENNESSEE
Posts:1334
 |
| 31 Jan 2011 01:24 PM |
�
|
Damn Jayhawkers!
|
|
| Soddy Daisy Tennessee USA,
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone
PROUD PRO STAFFER--www.heirloomgamecalls.com, hand made , hand tuned and hand tested, Hunt ARK ducks with www.smackinquack.com
I am an uncompensated, non-attorney spokesperson |
|
|
Shiloh
Posts:545
 |
| 01 Feb 2011 09:04 PM |
�
|
A free Republic once more!
On 1 Feb., 1861 Texas voted on the secession issue. The addition of Kansas as a free state was on the minds of many and Texas voted to secede. But, there were sizable portions that were adamantly against secession and about 25% voted against secession. These were mostly the German-imigrants of the hill counties and the upper counties that were largely populated with migrants from the upper South States of MO, TN, KY and AR that were themselves still in favor of remaining with the Union. Texas's Governor appointed men to start working with the Federal authorities to transfer ownership of Federal installations into the posession of the Republic of Texas. The Federal authorities were not interested in this idea... |
|
| I like my guns towed & crew-served!
http://www.nps.gov/stri/
http://www.blockaderunner.com/
http://www.9thky.org/
|
|
|