Thursday, July 31, 2008

Fight or Flight

It's one of several Illinois communities — reluctant to spend money on legal fights — rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.

For some reason, that bit about Frisco doesn't sound quite right. But the hold 'em/fold 'em reactions to these post-Heller challenges bring to mind a question for those more pragmatic than me: Say a liberal court like the Ninth Circuit twists the ruling and allows a ban to stay. Then say SCOTUS ducks the issue and refuses to hear the case.

What next? Elect better representatives and change the law? In California?

Is that it? "Majority rule democracy" is the end word? And until that changes, tough luck for blue-staters and urbanites who wish to exercise their rights?

Under those circumstances, you'd condemn civil disobedience and self defense against those who would deny rights? Would this apply across the board to all rights, or just to RKBA?

Since some of the "radical" sentiments expressed by some of us are dismissed out of hand, I think it's fair to ask where more moderate guidance could ultimately lead us.

Is there a pragmatic line in the sand? What is it? What happens if it's crossed? (Assuming discussing it openly won't traumatize the melanin-deficient, of course...)

What'll it be--fight or flight? Assuming there will always be a place to flee to if no one ever make a stand...

[Via Jeffersonian]

17 comments:

  1. These guys likely have some of the answers:

    British National Rifle Association

    Look, guv'nor - we still have our rifles and are still allowed (under very limited circumstances) to even shoot them (as long as all of our paperwork is in order).

    All quite civilizised, wouldn't you say?

    (/snark)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tyranny will reign until, those that are uneffected by it, are as outraged as those that are. Don't know who said it but I think it applies. In the War for Independance, the South did almost nothing until the North was hip deep in the contest. When they did get into it, they almost immediately suffered ignomous defeat. But the people living outside the cities in the south were VERY effected in mind,body, and spirit, and the fighting spirit they then endured and projected,vaulted out and into the campaign that ended at Yorktown. The North wasn't sitting still all this time of course, but both North and South were working, not always in harmony,towards the end game. I think the game now will move on the blunders the other side makes, particularly in the South,but with a lot more bloodshed up North. Legislative, voter, petition, letters, tv and radio work, are all fine. But if you watch the socialists move, you notice they are busy snipping all of our other rights from the tree, and before long, they'll have painted themselves into the corner of despotism.It will take time, but this is where they're headed. I just know they are hoping for this generation to kick off, so all they'll have to deal with in the future is a bunch of dumbed down progeny. But I think the old hippies and socialists will do what they have always done. They always overeach. Before their hoary heads go down to Sheol, they will want it all.And being on the illogical side of any argument, they will make a fatal mistake. It's what they do. Look how they're furiously arguing AGAINST drilling for more oil and gas and refineries, against stopping the tide of illegal aliens, and against all the moral stops that have been in place for thousands of years.They want to remake the US in the image of their socialist ideals. Guns are just symptomatic of the disease,albeit,a critical weathervane one. What do we do if the Ninth short-circuit pulls a fast one? Then SCUMUS looks the other way? What we've always done, I guess. Sounds pretty wussie, don't it. I know what I'd like to do. And you know I can't say it. So, we're more'n half way there. But just like when Marilyn Monroe is swimmin' nekkid in the backyard pool, and your wife is snoring beside you, somethings gotta give. I'm not advocating adultery, nezumi. What I'm saying is the socialists STAY on the wrong side of the law. In order to whup their commie asses, we'll have to join them there. Eggs, meet omelet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We do have a "long train of abuses" but we still have recourse.

    I'm not so worried about the Ninth Circuit...aren't they routinely overturned?

    ReplyDelete
  4. III - that's all need be said.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't help but be reminded of this scene from "A Bug's Life."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWZZSD4irM&NR=1

    ReplyDelete
  6. Congress yesterday passed laws declaring tobacco and its major ingredient nicotine a drug suitable for regulation by the FDA.
    Los Angeles is placing a moratorium on any more fast food restaurants in the south side of the city; people over there are getting fat faster than most other Angelenos.
    They are the Deciders. The War on Drugs becomes the War on All Stimulants and Unhealthy Lifestyles.
    Congress also passed a law concerning lead in consumer products such as toys. What other items contain lead and might concern them...?
    SO... they'll tell you what you can consume in the home you think belongs to you until they find a more tax-generating use for it as in "Kelo." You can work within the system to choose better officials, up to the point at which McCain-Feingold says you can't.
    You can march in the streets, but wear a helmet and padding because cops will body-slam you if they don't like what you say.
    And for God's sake, don't let your gun malfunction or dare to live at the wrong address a snitch gives the police, or be crippled and too slow getting out of a car when ORDERED TO. It could mean prison or death, or prison and THEN death.
    I ain't backing up no more. Time for THEM to START. A police state happens when isolated, distant abuses are allowed to keep happening. THEY need to be the ones jumping at shadows and worrying about doors being kicked in at 2 a.m.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whatever.

    We're just a bunch of Internet Blowhards, remember? We'll just pee our pants if any of this comes to pass.

    III

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let them keep thinking that, peter. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Won't they be surprised when the sleeping dragon arises.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll pick the first choice! That's what'll do! CIII

    ReplyDelete
  11. The news today announced that George Bush has reorganized the national intelligence structure, giving the director of national intelligence access to ALL intel. Congress was not consulted.
    If you have nothing to hide, you ... probably will soon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The "blue" and "red" symbology current in the last 4 years is a reversal of that which prevailed for decades, perhaps centuries before, and it irks me. All the best, cycjec

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Morton Grove mayor stated in the article, "If they believe that it has helped one homicide, then it's a good reason to fight it, but we don't have that issue here in Morton Grove."

    If they didn't and don't have "that issue", then WHY did they pass the handgun ban law in the first place?

    By their own admission it wasn't to address even a PERCEIVED problem, so what on earth was the motivation?

    Gun-banners: the same lying, controlling, power-hungry scum the whole world over.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who can predict just how the Ninth Circuit might react to Heller? Since the majority opinion clearly states that individual rights under the second amendment are entitled to exactly the same level of protection as other enumerated rights, they might easily rule all gun laws of any sort unconstitutional, and insist the it's to government's obligation to provide top quality guns to anybody who can't afford them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. With state revenue being squeezed this is an ideal time to bring lawsuits against anti-gun cities and states. They would have to choose between paving roads or fighting lawsuits they might lose.

    ReplyDelete
  16. “If they didn't and don't have "that issue", then WHY did they pass the handgun ban law in the first place?”

    It was a feel-good, symbolic gesture in response to a high profile murder in a nearby town, if I remember correctly. Just another example of politicians vowing to “do something” to curb crime and then enacting useless legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry Mike and David, I forgot.


    III

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.