No more gun-control "debates"! Molon labe!

[Occam's Banana]

This is a split from another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ks-Director-Austin-Petersen-attack-Alex-Jones

I agree with Cap'n Lou here, but there is more to it than just this:

The event won't move the debate an inch one way or another. It was a mutually beneficial ratings ploy for both parties. Like I said if it was a calm and mild-mannered interview than no one would care and it wouldn't be on the front page of Drudge. Both Jones and Morgan got exactly what they wanted - attention. And honestly, I highly doubt that anyone is going to turn from pro-gun to anti-gun (or vice versa) because of this.

Jones was being Jones. Morgan was being Morgan. Their respective performances were all about getting attention for themselves - and it was a "win" for both of them. I agree.

No one is (or not many are) going to go from being "anti-gun" to "pro-gun" (or vice versa) because of this incident. I agree with this, too.

However, at this point, NONE of that is really relevant. The right of people to defend themselves against a government that comes to take the rest of their rights is NOT negotiable.

It is NOT a matter to be debated or "discussed" - regardless of how calmly & politely such debates or "discussions" might be conducted.

"We should not negotiate with terrorists."

Pussyfooting around the issue will get us NOWHERE - *especially* since the modus operandi of gun-grabbers is to employ tactics such as exploiting tragedies like Sandy Hook to cynically manipulate emotions during any "debates" or "discussions".

Citing statistics (which are easlily manipulated - and just as easily dismissed or countered with other statistics), signing petitions or "writing your congressman" is just not going to cut it, either.

All such approaches amount to asking, "Please, sirs, may we be allowed to protect ourselves against you? Pretty please with sugar on top?"

It's well past time for people to start standing up in the faces of the gun-grabbers and shouting "Molon labe! Come and take them!"

THAT is the core of the issue. And almost everybody - on both sides of the issue - has been dancing around it.

This is NOT about "convincing" ANYONE of ANYTHING. NO ONE who is not already "convinced" is going to be swayed by yet another dull recitation of statistics - or yet one more rehashing of the same old arguments we've all heard over and over.

This is about putting people on notice that "enough is enough!"

To whatever extent that Jones' appearance did this (or might inspire others to do the same), it is a very good thing - regardless of whether his primary object was self-promotion.

Having said that, Larken Rose does a much, MUCH better job than Alex Jones did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eatt6SgI8c

See especially the 3:45 mark. (H/T Wesker1982: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400031-Guns-Say-What-You-Mean)



(Of course, Larken had the advantage of not having to deal with a smug prick like Piers Morgan ... )

 

[phill4paul]

Yup. There is no more debate.

 

[presence]

 

[shane77m]

There needs to be a national alert system to let people know if they start kicking in doors to confiscate guns. The internet might get shut down if they start grabbing.

 

[pcosmar]

There needs to be a national alert system to let people know if they start kicking in doors to confiscate guns. The internet might get shut down if they start grabbing.

And any news media coverage may be drastically distorted.

 

[shane77m]

And any news media coverage may be drastically distorted.

Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists will be the word thrown around.

 

[tod evans]

And any news media coverage will definitely be drastically distorted.

Fixed it for ya'...:o

 

[Tod]

Fixed it for ya'...:o

lol....saved me the trouble

 

[torchbearer]

+1. Hopefully, Jones injected the message into the matrix.
It did take some balls...

 

[Tod]

Non-hierarchical network needed somehow, with everyone having a group of trustworthy folks in their neighborhood.

The scenario this guy describes, of a house surrounded with a patriot trapped inside is definitely one to avoid where possible.



I don't think they would begin confiscation without first subpoenaing background records checks and possibly siezing your bank accounts and stuff. They might also stage a great big false flag event to use as an excuse to begin...

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't think they would begin confiscation without first subpoenaing background records checks

I suspect they have way more data than you suspect, and they don't need subpoenas to review, sort, or parse that data for whatever use they wish.

 

[shane77m]

Ham radios would probably be the way to go but I know nothing about them.

 

[Tod]

Assuming they begin confiscation by going house to house, the individual in that house that is caught stands no chance. At first they might just surround it, but after they have had sufficient losses they won't fool with that. They may have an armored bulldozer or something....come out or we will bulldoze your house with you in it.

If you surrender and a search doesn't satisfy them, off to camp you go, so if you had weapons stashed that no one know about, they will sit hidden and unused...

 

[TheTexan]

Assuming they begin confiscation by going house to house, the individual in that house that is caught stands no chance. At first they might just surround it, but after they have had sufficient losses they won't fool with that. They may have an armored bulldozer or something....come out or we will bulldoze your house with you in it.

If you surrender and a search doesn't satisfy them, off to camp you go, so if you had weapons stashed that no one know about, they will sit hidden and unused...

Yep. Don't get caught in the house... when the confiscations start, the last thing you want to do is sit there and wait for them to come to you.*

Have a plan ready. Be prepared.

(*unless of course that's part of your plan... )

 

[Occam's Banana]

Also from another thread: (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=4813091#post4813091)

IMO, folks who own guns but think that firearms are only for 'sport' are a bigger threat to gun rights than those who understand the original intent of the 2A.

I actually had a good friend of mine who happens to hunt ducks who says to me one day, "You know, people really don't need those hi-capacity guns. You can get by with a good hunting rifle or a decent duck shotgun." I wish the drone issue had been a big deal back when he said it, because I'd have made some crack about him having a point as long as the military starts using ducks with cameras on their heads to spy on us from the skies.

He probably wouldn't have understood though. He's one of those types who thinks you have nothing to worry about as long as you aren't doing anything 'wrong'. Typical Bush-era republican.

"Fat & happy" (i.e., content & oblivious) are just the sort of "responsible" gun owners who are the most "useful idiots" for the gun-grabbers (with the possible exception of the sensitive, emotional types who think it's merely and only about "reducing gun violence").

No amount of cajolery or statistics or "logic" is ever going to make a dent in any of those people, left or right.

They are the "moderates" who have no problem with so-called "reasonable" gun control - and that's a garden path that leads straight to the bottom of a very slippery slope.

For us to have any chance against the "moderates" and the gun-grabbers, we have to drop the illusion that we can somehow "win them over" if we are just calm enough, patient enough or rational enough - or our statistics are just impressive enough.

We must cast aside the notion that we need to "convince" people to "allow" us to keep our guns - or that we should even be expected to try.

We must confront them with the plain, unadorned consequences of their proposed course of action: "You want to take our guns away? Well, then, do it! Come and take them!"

 

[Pericles]

The reason that I "need" my "assault weapons" is because you want to steal them from me.

 

[TomtheTinker]

They are not going to kick doors in..first they will have buy backs, fines,threats, amnesty period, more buy backs, propaganda campaign demonizing gun owners, rewards for people who turn us in....then they will freeze assets, bank account, impose fines and jail time, not return taxes, maybe put you on a publicized list, could even take your kids since your endangering their welfare. By time they start kicking in doors we might as well becwearing the star of david on our sleeves.

Maybe if we are lucky..by the end of the decade we can share our wifes with the local czar

 

[shane77m]

, could even take your kids since your endangering their welfare.

That would get someone shot faster than trying to take away my guns.

 

[presence]

They are not going to kick doors in..first they will have buy backs, fines,threats, amnesty period, more buy backs, propaganda campaign demonizing gun owners, rewards for people who turn us in....then they will freeze assets, bank account, impose fines and jail time, not return taxes, maybe put you on a publicized list, could even take your kids since your endangering their welfare. Buy time they start kicking in doors we might as well be wearing the star of david on our sleeves.

Maybe if we are lucky..by the end of the decade we can share our wifes with the local czar

^^^

 

[Pericles]

They are not going to kick doors in..first they will have buy backs, fines,threats, amnesty period, more buy backs, propaganda campaign demonizing gun owners, rewards for people who turn us in....then they will freeze assets, bank account, impose fines and jail time, not return taxes, maybe put you on a publicized list, could even take your kids since your endangering their welfare. By time they start kicking in doors we might as well becwearing the star of david on our sleeves.

Maybe if we are lucky..by the end of the decade we can share our wifes with the local czar

Correct - the intention is for us to shoot first, in order to be hung with the terrorist label.

Be interesting to see what happens when certain "party organs" disappear, only to later discover, that they died in a coincidental series of single vehicle drunk driving accidents.