‘The Bullet Box’ Is an Option If the Ballot Box Fails, Says Gun-Rights Advocate

[PirateMk1]

No, I did not "forget" the Civil War, or the Whiskey Rebellion, or any number of other "minor" rebellions. Or did you miss the part about:





Really? That trigger is not as unlikely as you seem to think. There are between 80 and 110 MILLION American citizens who currently own firearms depending on which poll you prefer. That's between 1/4 - 1/3 of the current population. This is the same percentage as the numbers applying to the Revolutionary faction at the start of the American Revolution. (BTW, this includes a significant number of law enforcement personnel and both active and former military personnel.) Whenever some gun control measure is bandied about...more firearms get bought.

All it would take is a "democratically enacted" gun control law that gutted the Second Amendment followed by "legal" attempts to confiscate those weapons...do you think all those millions of armed Americans will give up this right meekly? :roll:

To your last question, in a word yes. Almost all would lay their arms down meekly. Very few would make a stand. Even fewer would band together. To be honest I would be surprised if the American gun owner resisted in mass more than just talk, or legal action.

 

[Deuce]

The Rascal Scooter revolution. Any day now guys I swear!

 

[Captain Adverse]

To your last question, in a word yes. Almost all would lay their arms down meekly. Very few would make a stand. Even fewer would band together. To be honest I would be surprised if the American gun owner resisted in mass more than just talk, or legal action.

Are you serious? You really believe this?

Sheeple are not typically gun owners.

I believe that a few groups and individuals would react immediately and in ineffective ways and be crushed.

That some number would "meekly surrender."

But IMO most would do what I would...compile secret arms/ammunition caches, maintain covert contact with known like-minded peers, and organize secretly.

Then wait for the right time and the right incident to act. :bomb:

 

[PirateMk1]

Are you serious? You really believe this?

Sheeple are not typically gun owners.

I believe that a few groups and individuals would react immediately and in ineffective ways and be crushed.

That some number would "meekly surrender."

But IMO most would do what I would...compile secret arms/ammunition caches, maintain covert contact with known like-minded peers, and organize secretly.

Then wait for the right time and the right incident to act. :bomb:

If they are going door to door I doubt that many would act. I thought otherwise but as of late from what I see of the country, I sincerely doubt they will act as you say. I hope to be wrong, but unfortunately evidence says otherwise.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If they are going door to door I doubt that many would act. I thought otherwise but as of late from what I see of the country, I sincerely doubt they will act as you say. I hope to be wrong, but unfortunately evidence says otherwise.

You mean going door to door to collect weapons?

That's why if I ever decided to possess firearms I would never register, never buy a weapon or ammunition through a licensed dealer, etc.

The reason why you can't see it happening is because most people, like myself, are not alarmed enough yet.

We've recently had the right clarified by SCOTUS as an individual right and significant representation in Congress to prevent any real disarmament efforts. If this would ever change?

All bets would be off.

 

[PirateMk1]

You mean going door to door to collect weapons?

That's why if I ever decided to possess firearms I would never register, never buy a weapon or ammunition through a licensed dealer, etc.

The reason why you can't see it happening is because most people, like myself, are not alarmed enough yet.

We've recently had the right clarified by SCOTUS as an individual right and significant representation in Congress to prevent any real disarmament efforts. If this would ever change?

All bets would be off.

I have a feeling we will see sooner than we think. I hope not.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I have a feeling we will see sooner than we think. I hope not.

Perhaps, if Hillary is elected President you may very well be right. Sooner than we think.

 

[Deuce]

Are you serious? You really believe this?

Sheeple are not typically gun owners.

I believe that a few groups and individuals would react immediately and in ineffective ways and be crushed.

That some number would "meekly surrender."

But IMO most would do what I would...compile secret arms/ammunition caches, maintain covert contact with known like-minded peers, and organize secretly.

Then wait for the right time and the right incident to act. :bomb:

No, most would talk a big game on the internet and never lift a finger like they've been doing forever.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, most would talk a big game on the internet and never lift a finger like they've been doing forever.

Time will tell. :shrug:

 

[Phys251]

You should read the Declaration of Independence. It states quite clearly what gives them the authority. The entire point of the document is to state what gave them the authority.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. The Declaration was just that, a declaration. It is not the framework of our government; that is the Constitution.
2. What exactly did give them that authority to secede? You do realize that no matter how you dice this, any argument for or against secession from an established government is going to be inherently subjective, right?

 

[ajn678]

‘Bullet Box’ an Option, Says Gun-Rights Advocate -- NYMag
‘The Bullet Box’ Is an Option If the Ballot Box Fails, Says Gun-Rights Advocate

“All Second Amendment enthusiasts are not the same. There are those who strongly believe in the right to bear arms for purposes of self-protection against criminals and for hunting and other sports usages. And then there are those who believe the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep revolutionary violence on the table as a fallback plan if in their view "essential rights" are threatened, including gun rights themselves.

You can pretty clearly put many members of the Gun Owners of America, a group that considers the NRA a bunch of accomodationist squishes, in the latter category…………… While Pratt's term "bullet box" is attracting attention, this is a very old sentiment not just among gun enthusiasts but in broad swaths of movement conservatism. Recent proclamations in favor of the right to overthrow the government as essential to the maintenance of constitutional order have come from 2016 presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee…………….. For the present, it's enough for Pratt to remind the rest of us that his tolerance for democracy and judicial supremacy has its limits, and if pushed too far, the "bullet box" is ever-ready.

The whole world is upside down and the screwballs and gun nuts are out of control…………As I have so often said…………”Ignorance is a decision.” And may GHUA

I remember this guy. He was the one calling Trump a fascist, and I questioned his lean back then because he was clearly not a Conservative. This just proves it completely. It also proves that while you are not a Conservative, you are also not a legal scholar either.

 

[Thoreau72]

Sigh! What jury hears a challenge to any law?

No court is an arm of citizens.

The ballot box simple elects a bunch of power hungry mercenaries who's memory and allegiance are both for sale. The ballot box has no determination of what laws are passed or not. Governments court appointed and funded judges decide on the validity or not of laws.

The courts decide on what cases they will hear.

There is only one viable option which is why gun control uses it. Now if gun control is smart enough to figure it out why cant firearm owners?

It is a common situation today in the US, but more than 100 years after the Sparf decision in 1895, the vast majority of americans are completely uninformed of the power of the jury, and the obligation of jurors.

In fact, on a case by case basis, the jury has the power to nullify poor laws. Only in that case on that day, but it has that power. A string of jury nullifications can make the government think twice about bringing such cases. That is largely what happened with the 1850 law known as the Fugitive Slave Act.

You should familiarize yourself with the Fully Informed Jury Association, aka American Jury Institute.

aji@fija.org

The same principles can be applied against some gun laws.

 

[Aberration]

1. The Declaration was just that, a declaration. It is not the framework of our government; that is the Constitution.
2. What exactly did give them that authority to secede? You do realize that no matter how you dice this, any argument for or against secession from an established government is going to be inherently subjective, right?

1. No where did I claim the Declaration was the framework of government.

2. Read the Declaration. They stated it clearly. And objectively.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

1. No where did I claim the Declaration was the framework of government.

2. Read the Declaration. They stated it clearly. And objectively.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1,2. Then what was that authority?! I have access to Google; I can read the text of the Declaration. What I want to hear from you is, what do you think that authority for secession was?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Actually, you have an uninformed view of the DOI.



If this were the case then by your argument the Revolution was unjustified, since only about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the population was for the revolution, approximately 1/4th were Tory Loyalists, and the vast majority (1/2 of the population) just wanted to be left alone.

When you try to cite the famous "Adams letter", please do so carefully. You made the classic mistake.
I sure hope you didn't pay very much for your education because when it goes beyond mere citation, you fall flat.
The letter referred to American support for the British and for the French revolution.

"The middle third, composed principally of the yeomanry, the soundest part of the nation, and always averse to war, were [sic] rather lukewarm both to England and France...." - See more at: History News Network | Only 1/3rd of Americans Supported the American Revolution?

Also, support for the American revolution ramped up quickly after the first British response, which is covered in letters from Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Franklin in numbers too great to cite here. The revolution was "sold" to the people not through the taverns and town squares, because to do so would have been a criminal act, thus the mere whispered mention attracted interest. The reason that we know it garnered more than a smattering of support is due to the mere fact that revolutionary soldiers had no need to force quartering as the British did. Everything from supplies, to armaments, to weapons, was focused quickly even if supply lines were cut frequently.

Did you miss all the information about the fact that there are anywhere from 80 MILLION to 110 MILLION citizens who own firearms? How many "Millions upon Millions" would need to revolt in order to qualify? Oh yeah, YOUR position is that it MUST be "a majority." So since that was not the case back during our nation's Revolution, why don't we just humbly apologize for the mistake to Great Britain and declare ourselves subjects of the English crown... :roll:

Actually it's much more accurate to mention that there are 310 million firearms in private hands, which is of course why confiscation is an utterly ridiculous idea.
Please don't try to pigeonhole me. I mean, do as you like but you will look silly in the process, as I am not a weak kneed anti-gun whiner.
I own them and think the 2A is jolly well okay.

Actually is it your argument that indicates this very thing, that the author and supporters of the DOI were "terrorists," although that term did not exist at the time so instead they were called traitors, rebels, pirates, etc., all the equivalent terms for terrorist available back then.

That has to do with modern sov cit militia groups how? Oh wait, SHAY'S REBELLION!

Pointing to a few yahoos like those gents who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve in Oregon does not defeat the underlying point that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to preserve just such action. It does not require any "majority," nor does it guarantee any success. It simply guarantees the ability to TRY!

Oh so you agree that they are yahoos.
Then stop supporting their position, makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

[Aberration]

1,2. Then what was that authority?! I have access to Google; I can read the text of the Declaration. What I want to hear from you is, what do you think that authority for secession was?

It doesn't matter what I think. I wasn't there or involved in any way. The only thing that matters is what the Declaration says.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rhinefire]

Yet another stupid thread that totally ignores the problem...assault weapons coming in illegally to this nation. Typical American ignorance and inability to address the core of a problem. Introduce legislation on methods to reduce the number of illegal weapons and after it has proven beyond all doubt that it is working then address legal weapons issues. It is a fact that there are cities in which police will not respond to calls for fear of getting shot. How many illegal weapons do you think are in those neighborhoods and why is it nothing is being done to confiscate them?

 

[Aberration]

Yet another stupid thread that totally ignores the problem...assault weapons coming in illegally to this nation. Typical American ignorance and inability to address the core of a problem. Introduce legislation on methods to reduce the number of illegal weapons and after it has proven beyond all doubt that it is working then address legal weapons issues. It is a fact that there are cities in which police will not respond to calls for fear of getting shot. How many illegal weapons do you think are in those neighborhoods and why is it nothing is being done to confiscate them?

You are confused. We have no problem with assault weapons coming in illegally to this country.

How do you propose confiscating these illegal weapons?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It is a common situation today in the US, but more than 100 years after the Sparf decision in 1895, the vast majority of americans are completely uninformed of the power of the jury, and the obligation of jurors.

In fact, on a case by case basis, the jury has the power to nullify poor laws. Only in that case on that day, but it has that power. A string of jury nullifications can make the government think twice about bringing such cases. That is largely what happened with the 1850 law known as the Fugitive Slave Act.

You should familiarize yourself with the Fully Informed Jury Association, aka American Jury Institute.

aji@fija.org

The same principles can be applied against some gun laws.

---I truly have a love/hate relationship with the whole "fully informed jury/jury nullification" concept because it's brilliant, it's effective, it's noble...and it is abused so very very much. No, I am not a lawyer, so I am not able to grant you any long laundry list of citations, very sorry.
Just think "all-white southern jury presiding over anything involving a black man in pre-1964 Alabama, Mississippi", etc., then extrapolate to today.
I assure you, it's more love than hate though, because it does sometimes empower juries to make wiser and more moral decisions.

Guns cannot and will not ever be confiscated en masse in this country.
Obama, Hillary, any liberal president you can name or imagine, cannot and will not make it happen and neither will any right wing president.
If it was ever going to happen, it would have happened back when there were less than 10 million firearms in private hands.
The cost of confiscating 310 million guns is a logistical and fiscal impossibility.
There are not and never will be enough personnel to do the job.
And perhaps that's a good thing because it means we'd better learn how to control our loonies, our ammosexuals and our democracy haters a lot better.
That way SANE, legal and law abiding gun owners can breathe easier too.
Not all of us hide in our basements or gather at bird sanctuaries waiting for the order to come from the head Oath Smeller or "Constitution Sheriff" and not all of us are wearing out our printers filing nuisance lawsuits.

I think you guys are just dabbling.
If you were serious, you'd get off the interwebs, which are an assault on your freedom by admiralty courts anyway, and you'd become "Freemen On The Land" and start using CAPITAL LETTERS and colons:in:a:very:earnest:manner...because your rights as living, breathing natural men on the land are under attack, your legal fictions are being auctioned off to the Queen of England and you are losing your chance to access your Treasury Direct Accounts.

ACCEPTED FOR VALUE under Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and for all:

:::checkerboard-strangler:: of the strangler-family::: <<<---written in REDink to cancel any interference by the admiralty courts!!!

 

[Phys251]

It doesn't matter what I think. I wasn't there or involved in any way. The only thing that matters is what the Declaration says.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK so you're not going to answer my question. I wonder why that is.

 

[Crimefree]

You have a child's view of the DOI.
Individuals, or even small groups of individuals, do NOT have the right to do any damn thing of the sort.

The "Body of the People" (MAJORITY) have to feel concerned before the right of revolution is justified. Maier defines that as the "whole people who are the Publick," or the body of the people acting in their "public authority," indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society."

MILLIONS upon MILLIONS.

Your view of the Declaration of Independence makes it a document written by terrorists who advocate further terrorism as a means to an end, which is just flat out ridiculous. The reason 18 U.S. Code § 2385 exists is because the body of the people are satisfied that it does indeed take an overwhelming majority OF the body of the people to agree to such a revolution to throw off a form of government which they now define as tyrannical, which their overwhelming numbers prove as such.

Short of that, you GET the ballot box, and you do not get the bullet box.
And I DO get my right of personal self defense. The cops won't be there to protect me from the likes of you and your buddies, they will be there to protect you from me, because I view the very sight of sovereign citizen types as a direct threat to my safety and the safety of my family and loved ones, and my property. That goes for Oath Smellers, Sipsey Street Irregulars, III%-ers, Bundy Ranch militia types, you name it.
Either law enforcement neutralizes you and your bullet box fetishists, or I will.

You and your ammosexual buddies better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Robert LaVoy Finicum should have been an object lesson to the lot of you.

So go GET your millions, then we can talk revolution.
Till then, you better stick to taking over bird sanctuaries and begging for snacks.

Apparently you forgot to mention government expressly forbids anyone from getting those millions. You think that might be a breach of the DOI and constitution?

 

[Crimefree]

You are confused. We have no problem with assault weapons coming in illegally to this country.

How do you propose confiscating these illegal weapons?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Last I heard trying to take away objects to solve behavioural problems had never worked. I'm pretty sure there are no exceptions. The problem is criminals and crime, not guns

 

[Crimefree]

OK so you're not going to answer my question. I wonder why that is.

Was the answer "what I think is irrelevant" not good enough? That is what you asked.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Apparently you forgot to mention government expressly forbids anyone from getting those millions. You think that might be a breach of the DOI and constitution?

No, actually it doesn't. Corporations do, Citizens United does, a lot of things make it damn near impossible to effectively spread the idea of gathering an overwhelming consensus that represents a means to an end and a moral imperative.
But da gubmint ain't one of them.

 

[Thoreau72]

---I truly have a love/hate relationship with the whole "fully informed jury/jury nullification" concept because it's brilliant, it's effective, it's noble...and it is abused so very very much. No, I am not a lawyer, so I am not able to grant you any long laundry list of citations, very sorry.
Just think "all-white southern jury presiding over anything involving a black man in pre-1964 Alabama, Mississippi", etc., then extrapolate to today.
I assure you, it's more love than hate though, because it does sometimes empower juries to make wiser and more moral decisions.

Guns cannot and will not ever be confiscated en masse in this country.
Obama, Hillary, any liberal president you can name or imagine, cannot and will not make it happen and neither will any right wing president.
If it was ever going to happen, it would have happened back when there were less than 10 million firearms in private hands.
The cost of confiscating 310 million guns is a logistical and fiscal impossibility.
There are not and never will be enough personnel to do the job.
And perhaps that's a good thing because it means we'd better learn how to control our loonies, our ammosexuals and our democracy haters a lot better.
That way SANE, legal and law abiding gun owners can breathe easier too.
Not all of us hide in our basements or gather at bird sanctuaries waiting for the order to come from the head Oath Smeller or "Constitution Sheriff" and not all of us are wearing out our printers filing nuisance lawsuits.

I think you guys are just dabbling.
If you were serious, you'd get off the interwebs, which are an assault on your freedom by admiralty courts anyway, and you'd become "Freemen On The Land" and start using CAPITAL LETTERS and colons:in:a:very:earnest:manner...because your rights as living, breathing natural men on the land are under attack, your legal fictions are being auctioned off to the Queen of England and you are losing your chance to access your Treasury Direct Accounts.

ACCEPTED FOR VALUE under Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and for all:

:::checkerboard-strangler:: of the strangler-family::: <<<---written in REDink to cancel any interference by the admiralty courts!!!

I don't know what group you are including me in, with your "you guys" reference.

FYI, I support and defend the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. I also support the rest of the US Constitution. You don't sound exactly like you're whining, but you seem unhappy about something.

Further, I'm old enough and informed enough to have figured out many years ago that juries can be fooled just like the rest of the population. I understand, it's old new BTW, that for many decades juries were institutionalized sources of injustice and racism. In many cases they still are, and the injustice and racism often transcend juries and permeate the entire government structure including how the laws are written.

But juries CAN deliver justice, if only the humans that are the jury are informed of their powers and obligations.