"Gun control deserves serious action.... "

[Abraham]

Instead of direct responses to the many "reasonable" inquiries of the forum members put to you regarding gun control as you see it, you attempt to distract with indignation, bona fides and an appeal to the infirmities of old age.

Many here are also elderly, credentialed, walk with a limp and don't hear well, yet when asked - do their best to answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Why don't you?

[VMI77]

57Coastie, with all due respect, you're either misrepresenting yourself in this forum or you're delusional.

Never before have I been so insulted. I am neither misrepresenting myself, lying, nor, according to my physician, delusional.

I have always done the very best that I can in letting all hands here know who I am and my background. I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lie about, as you have blatantly accused me of doing. Perhaps I have been mistaken in assuming that what I put in my profile here is open to the public. If I am wrong in that I will publish it right here after someone lets me know. All you to do is ask, and I will post it immediately.

Nuts -- I will do it anyway, just in case my profile is not in fact public.

Website: http://www.donatominxbrown.com/FSL5CS/X ... 25A500620C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Occupation: Military officer, Foreign Service officer, law enforcement officer, trial lawyer, trial judge, appellate judge, seaman, commercial pilot, flight instructor, Confederate Air Force pilot. Never could hold down a steady job. Never really wanted to. Happily retired now.

Interests: One who is concerned for our nation's future and that of the world. Have enjoyed handgun competitive marksmanship since training and competing with the U. S. Army Marksmanship Unit, more than 50 years ago.

Birthday: 18 June 1935

If there is anything you or anyone else wants to know about me, just let me know. If there are indeed gun-nuts out there they can find my address in the College Station telephone book very easily. If that does not work, just ask me for it. No point in your asking for my telephone number, however. I cannot use a telephone reliably, being almost completely deaf, although I have recently had a Cochlear implant surgically implanted, and my training program with a therapist is showing great improvement in my hearing. I am told by my physician that my deafness was probably brought about by a combination of guns, little ones and big ones (not larger than 5" 38, however, thank goodness), too many hours in airplanes, including open cockpits, vintage WWII -- all before ear protection became the norm in the military, and just plain old age. Contrary to your allegation of delusion, he finds no degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.

Do I truly have a CHL? Yes, I do indeed have a CHL and I carry at least one concealed handgun. I cannot remember the precise date of when I first got it, along with my wife, but I have renewed it often enough to fall into the 10-year category. I still audit a CHL renewal course generally annually, and no less often than at the end of each legislature, if only to be sure I am aware of what the latest is that came out of Austin. One of the best annual CHL renewal class audits I took was one given by Charles Cotton at the PSC. I also attended a lawyers' continuing legal education (CLE) course on Texas Gun Law at which Charles was one of the several presenters, even though my age exempts me from having to take these classes annually.

Do I have other guns in the gunsafe besides the one or ones I am carrying? Absolutely. Both modern and vintage collectibles, both long guns and handguns, my prize example of the latter being a "real" Colt m1911 vintage 1917 which I purchased in 1961, if I remember right. I knowingly possibly ruined its value as a collectible when I had the AMU armorer accurize the piece the next year. But it is not a safe queen. It is the best weapon I have for marksmanship shooting, bar none, even given its age and mine. I have put literally thousands of rounds through her, which is so easy to do firing sometime three 2600s daily with the AMU.

You've picked on the wrong guy, VMI, and your assumptions are invalid. I am sure you have seen the word "ASSUME" broken down into its component parts.

Jim

Edited for intent, and again for spelling an grammar.

I admit, I didn't look at your profile and my response is solely based on what I've read of your posts. I have to chuckle at that" never been so insulted" line though....at your age, with your background, you're never been so insulted? That strikes me as a little incredible...and hey, sort of a "misrepresentation," or if you prefer, a little courtroom maneuvering. Are you also shocked? I wasn't trying to insult you and I didn't call you a liar, but in spite of your protestations to the contrary I still question your sincerity. Methinks thou doth protesteth too much. I think being "insulted" is another courtroom tactic...sort of a version of the heckler's veto, but if I hurt your feelings I apologize.

Let me expand on what I meant by "misrepresentation." You profess to be a gun owner with a CHL yet you consistently espouse the rhetoric of the anti-gun left, and you use the rhetorical tactics of the left. You sound like a student of Saul Alinsky, albeit quite a bit more sly and temperate in your rhetoric than the typical lefty; and your approach tends to the oblique rather than being direct. So, for instance, instead of ridiculing us yourself, you post and endorse an article by Ms. Dowd that ridicules us for you. A psychologist might call this tactic passive-aggressive. I also didn't call you delusional. In fact, I specifically stated I think you're intelligent and not delusional. I have no idea what you're up to because I simply don't understand why you, or anyone, would argue so passionately against their own interests. I didn't say it before, but you're also pretty crafty in your use of the language. So, if you're not in someway misrepresenting your position on gun rights here it's a little puzzling why you're using anti-gun rhetoric in exactly the way it is used by the anti-gun left, with all the pretense about being "reasonable" and "negotiating" for a "compromise" --phony language that has been completely debunked by just about everyone on this thread.

You never quite just come out and say anything you can be pinned down for though, do you? More legalistic maneuvering. You chose not to respond to the substantive part of my post, just to react to my "insult." What do they tell you in law school?: When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names. You've been repeatedly asked to "argue the law" and to "argue the facts" and have consistently ignored both. You have yet to tell us what you believe is the nature and extent of the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment. You ignore everything everyone has said about the left's phony calls for "reason" and "negotiation." You won't say what you'd "compromise" or what you're willing to give up. I have to tell you, I'd sure never hire an attorney who thinks the other side should get to define what's "reasonable," that arguing over what part of a diminished right your opponents "allow" you to exercise is "negotiation," and that concession equals "compromise."

Why don't you help me illustrate your principles? I'll come over to your house and tell you what you don't need. I guarantee I'll be "reasonable." If you don't think I'm being reasonable we'll "negotiate" and I'll make "concessions" about which items you're allowed to keep. I sure hope you have a nice big fancy car and a big flat-screen TV....two things you definitely don't need. And since the Constitution doesn't even grant you a specific right to own those items I don't see how you can possibly object to my confiscating them. I'll give them to charity if you wish....how's that for a compromise? And even if it did, how could the Founders have possibly imagined things like cars and televisions?

[baldeagle]

All right, boys - it's an emotional subject but let's all cool off and debate the merits of our respective positions and not fall into the ad hominem trap so beloved of our opponents.

Amen! It's overdue, and insults on either side of this issue do no one any good in representing their position. We should respect everyone's view on the forum, regardless of their position.

I have insulted no one. I've asked Coastie for straight answers, and so far he has not given them. I'm still waiting.

[Poldark]

Sure looks like the Globalists are winning and now EO threatened from the WH

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 94984.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

Sure looks like the Globalists are winning and now EO threatened from the WH

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 94984.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We knew he was going to do this before the election. People said so on this board, the NRA said so, other gun rights groups and advocates said so, and Anygunanywhere has been saying so in numerous threads since the DIFi Bill was proposed.

[Poldark]

Sure looks like the Globalists are winning and now EO threatened from the WH

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 94984.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We knew he was going to do this before the election. People said so on this board, the NRA said so, other gun rights groups and advocates said so, and Anygunanywhere has been saying so in numerous threads since the DIFi Bill was proposed.

Check out the Drudge Headline

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/161207/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and a short History video , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2NSKoIT ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pete92FS]

Sure looks like the Globalists are winning and now EO threatened from the WH

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 94984.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We knew he was going to do this before the election. People said so on this board, the NRA said so, other gun rights groups and advocates said so, and Anygunanywhere has been saying so in numerous threads since the DIFi Bill was proposed.

Check out the Drudge Headline

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/161207/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and a short History refresher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2NSKoIT ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You beat me to it - didn't most of us assume this is what our dictator-in-chief was going to pull?

[The Annoyed Man]

My point on this when starting up this thread was actually to insure that all our members recognize that our ability to responsibly own and use firearms is under a attack now like we perhaps have not seen before. Our response to that attack may have to be done differently than by regurgitating our own talk to each other and that of the NRA, or, even worse, threatening insurrection, rebellion, seditious conspiracy, or advocating the overthrow of our government.

In the news today was another instance which confirms, to my mind, that the attack is growing, and our response could be fatal if not modified. It must by now be obvious to all that my legal position on the Second Amendment is not "any gun, any time, any place, regardless of other factors present at the time," but I must admit that I am becoming concerned about all the many broad statements coming out of Washington and elsewhere recently.

Jim,

You told me in a PM that you thought I was treading perilously close to sedition in my comments, and you have mentioned it openly here. Now, I don't claim to have your experience as a lawyer or appellate judge, but I've still got decades of experience as a thinking American with a reasonably high IQ, so I took it upon myself to Google the following search phrase: "last prosecution for sedition in America." I wanted to see for myself if I was treading a line here, because frankly, I never trust a liberal any more when they try to instruct me on the law, their years of practice experience notwithstanding. Liberals are nearly uniformly bullies, and if your suggestion was more than just a warning, and was actually a veiled threat, it would be far from the first time that a liberal has tried to bully me into shutting up. I don't respond to bullying except to lean into it even harder instead of backing away from it. I didn't think it was a threat, but a former member thought it was, and he resigned his membership. So whether you intended it or not, an ideological opponent of yours felt bullied into shutting up to save his own skin, and he quit. Liberalism is never really about protection of free speech, unless it is their speech.

So here is what I found out about sedition in the United States. My primary source is Wikipedia. They are not unimpeachable, but it is for the most part non-partisan because the open-source nature of it prevents one side or the other from dominating all things......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" -- beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.

There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws against protesters of the Vietnam War. On October 17, 1967, two demonstrators, including then Marin County resident Al Wasserman, while engaged in a 'sit in' at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, Ca., were arrested and charged with sedition by deputy US. Marshall Richard St. Germain. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys (according to Mr. Wasserman there were only 2) reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The inductees were in the process of physically stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the inductees' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."[25]

In 1987 fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against a seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order. Others such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.[26]

On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[27]

Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[28] after writing a letter[29][30] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[31] Charges were dropped in 2006.[32]

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the Hutaree militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[33]

Now, at no point have I advocated the overthrow of the national government. I have speculated, as have many others, what something like that would look like, but I have never said anything indicating that I wanted anything other than the Constitutional Republic we are now supposed to be. IF ANYTHING, I have advocated for a return to exactly the Constitutional Republic as founded, and away from the progressivist/socialist/communist agenda of the democrat party. If that's sedition, then Karl Marx was a Wall Street banker. What I HAVE said is that I will resist with arms any attempt to confiscate those arms. Now, you may think that is a criminal statement, and maybe it is. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know. But it isn't seditious.

Yates v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States) held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger." Other cases have sought to define "clear and present danger" with regard to speech, with the most current definition being that descended from Brandenburg v. Ohio, which says: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

Nothing I have said or done has advocated for "imminent lawless action"...................until and unless Congress and specifically democrats, jim, that's YOUR party, make me into an instant felon by infringing on my right to own something which I purchased completely legally and in full-faith compliance with existing laws. That is why I will not negotiate or compromise with your party, and I will defend myself if your party presses me to.

In other words, and the democrat party would do very well to take heed, don't tread on me.

[jdhz28]

My point on this when starting up this thread was actually to insure that all our members recognize that our ability to responsibly own and use firearms is under a attack now like we perhaps have not seen before. Our response to that attack may have to be done differently than by regurgitating our own talk to each other and that of the NRA, or, even worse, threatening insurrection, rebellion, seditious conspiracy, or advocating the overthrow of our government.

In the news today was another instance which confirms, to my mind, that the attack is growing, and our response could be fatal if not modified. It must by now be obvious to all that my legal position on the Second Amendment is not "any gun, any time, any place, regardless of other factors present at the time," but I must admit that I am becoming concerned about all the many broad statements coming out of Washington and elsewhere recently.

Jim,

You told me in a PM that you thought I was treading perilously close to sedition in my comments, and you have mentioned it openly here. Now, I don't claim to have your experience as a lawyer or appellate judge, but I've still got decades of experience as a thinking American with a reasonably high IQ, so I took it upon myself to Google the following search phrase: "last prosecution for sedition in America." I wanted to see for myself if I was treading a line here, because frankly, I never trust a liberal any more when they try to instruct me on the law, their years of practice experience notwithstanding. Liberals are nearly uniformly bullies, and if your suggestion was more than just a warning, and was actually a veiled threat, it would be far from the first time that a liberal has tried to bully me into shutting up. I don't respond to bullying except to lean into it even harder instead of backing away from it. I didn't think it was a threat, but a former member thought it was, and he resigned his membership. So whether you intended it or not, an ideological opponent of yours felt bullied into shutting up to save his own skin, and he quit. Liberalism is never really about protection of free speech, unless it is their speech.

So here is what I found out about sedition in the United States. My primary source is Wikipedia. They are not unimpeachable, but it is for the most part non-partisan because the open-source nature of it prevents one side or the other from dominating all things......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" -- beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.

There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws against protesters of the Vietnam War. On October 17, 1967, two demonstrators, including then Marin County resident Al Wasserman, while engaged in a 'sit in' at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, Ca., were arrested and charged with sedition by deputy US. Marshall Richard St. Germain. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys (according to Mr. Wasserman there were only 2) reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The inductees were in the process of physically stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the inductees' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."[25]

In 1987 fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against a seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order. Others such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.[26]

On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[27]

Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[28] after writing a letter[29][30] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[31] Charges were dropped in 2006.[32]

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the Hutaree militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[33]

Now, at no point have I advocated the overthrow of the national government. I have speculated, as have many others, what something like that would look like, but I have never said anything indicating that I wanted anything other than the Constitutional Republic we are now supposed to be. IF ANYTHING, I have advocated for a return to exactly the Constitutional Republic as founded, and away from the progressivist/socialist/communist agenda of the democrat party. If that's sedition, then Karl Marx was a Wall Street banker. What I HAVE said is that I will resist with arms any attempt to confiscate those arms. Now, you may think that is a criminal statement, and maybe it is. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know. But it isn't seditious.

Yates v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States) held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger." Other cases have sought to define "clear and present danger" with regard to speech, with the most current definition being that descended from Brandenburg v. Ohio, which says: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."

Nothing I have said or done has advocated for "imminent lawless action"...................until and unless Congress and specifically democrats, jim, that's YOUR party, make me into an instant felon by infringing on my right to own something which I purchased completely legally and in full-faith compliance with existing laws. That is why I will not negotiate or compromise with your party, and I will defend myself if your party presses me to.

In other words, and the democrat party would do very well to take heed, don't tread on me.

[mojo84]

Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

[Jaguar]

I too wonder how it is seditious to wish for, plan for, and if need be, act on making the government follow the constitution. Isn't the Constitution what defines the government? If so, stopping government from violating its own rules seem anti-seditious to me. But, IANAL, so what do I know.

[VMI77]

Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

Looks to me like the man is a moron. He says the government needs to confiscate guns in order to protect gun owners. OK, maybe he just sounds like a moron because he's spouting typical liberal drivel intended to appeal to morons; but if he really believes all that nonsense he's quoted as saying, he truly is a moron. My kids were more articulate and made more sense than this idiot when they were 10 years old. And if the evil .223 round is so powerful it can't be allowed "on the streets," then isn't he going to have to ban all centerfire rifles except the .17 HMR?

[mojo84]

I get the jist of what he is trying to say. Seems like a man in his position would be able to speak in complete sentences.

[baldeagle]

Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

It's idiots like this moron that are inflaming the situation. When you threaten to seize lawfully purchased weapons, you are treading on very dangerous ground, right on the edge of all out civil war. It will not go well for them, if they seriously think they can do this.

[Abraham]

...on a side note, my .17 HMR is a rimfire.