Brownells Joins the Firearms Policy Coalition Constitution Alliance

@Joe R. Long rant, but I feel you - In particularly, I do believe that a simple quote from your short essay would've sufficiently summarized everything we needed to know:

as all rights are essentially freedoms from-government, then government cannot also be the issuer of those rights, or the protector of those rights

And that is that.

Of course, freedom includes the rights of others to conduct activities of which you do not personally approve. That goes both ways. You and I like arms in the hands of the people, others not so much. That much is fine. But the moment either faction tries to force their way of life onto the other (and in the current meta, it is largely the anti-gun faction trying their damn best to impose their way on us), only then is militia action on the table. Given the situation, it is on the table.

Fundamental liberties are at stake - and as you said, all the governments are supposed to do is make a legally binding statement that they'll stay the hell away from interfereing with such rights, for these rights are, as they say, God given. Even if one doesn't believe in God, it remains evident that no man or men has the right to take these rights away.

@Joe R. Also, even as I wholly support the position of "making tyrants afraid again", I would most certainly steer clear of "making misguided useful idiots afraid". After all, put too much pressure, and you just corralled the majority into voting against the public's interests that is the issue of civil armament.

As Sun Tzu does say, don't corner all of your enemies. A cornered enemy would rather fight to the death than lay down their arms. Every counterinsurgency that has failed in the past 3 decades can be linked to overzealous persecution and hostile action. Keep that in mind.

@Joe R. You hint at knowing the history, yet you fail to take the two most important lessons:

1) You don't craft policies and political action imagining how your side would use them against your enemies, but rather thinking how your enemies would use them against your side. Because they WILL get a turn in that.

2) political violence is two-sided sword, known to back-stab and make things worse more often than not, and also notoriously proven to be utilized as an excuse to grab power by hintertho unseen 3rd party.

Essentially, you have the Antifa Mentality: "we could beat or even kill our opponents with impunity Because We Are The Good Guys with Right Opinions (tm)". Well guess what happens when two violence-happy parties with this attitude meet in real world.

Also: your post has probably already been screenshotted, archived and will be used as a "proof" that RKBA's are "murder-prone violent militant extremists" or even "terrorists". Congratulations for "helping" your cause. If you are not an agent-provocateur/falseflag in the first place.

FYI, this is a cultural war and cultural war is primarily waged in the minds of the people with neutral/not strong opinions, where your violence rants serve as 100% deterrent.

@Ondřej Tůma At least you didn't say I was wrong.

And what I said about the Declaration will be in full-force and effect no matter how many times we amend the "Constitution" [already, essentially, our 3rd version].

I'm not advocating anything other than a big STFhellU to everyone pitching anything to do with "discussion" or "negotiation" with firearm "regulators" as neither of those parties are protecting anyone (Further, no one believes they can, so no one asked them to, and if we're making up our own job descriptions now, watch the F out).

Compromise is the process of giving your enemy some of what he wants, not some of what he is entitled to, and is what has gotten us to this point.

A bona fide U.S. Citizen would have to spring from the womb, fully formed and, armed to the teeth in order to beat back the infringement [barbs and feints] that have been heaped upon his predecessors.

F2alldat

@Joe R. There is a profound difference between "uncompromising defense of X" via political and cultural means - and between massive political violence of Stalinist/DPRK proportions...

@Ondřej Tůma Ya, the 'difference' [between those two points] is Venezuela.

Stalin [and socialist movements, of which, even Saddam Hussein's "Bath Party" was one] is their side by the way.

@Joe R. "Collective punishment of the rest of their family for the crimes of an individual" is exactly Stalin, DPRK, ISIS, Taliban, drug cartels, Oprichnina etc.

No way around that and no excuse for that.

It doesn't matter what your motivation is, it only counts what acts you commit or promote.

(Every war criminal and mass murderer ever thought his motives are as Pure, Righteous and Noble as the heavenly choir.)