There Will Be Resistance
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 10 months ago
In his boldest terms yet, he vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence and said he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines.
“It is not enough for us to say, ‘This is too hard so we’re not going to try,'” Obama said. “So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody.
“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids. And, yes, it’s going to be hard.”
Obama’s comments come as the schoolroom shooting has elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention.
[ … ]
Obama said he intended to press the issue with the public.
“Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance,” he said.
Resistance. Uh huh. Perhaps Mr. Obama doesn’t fully understand the nature of that resistance? Or perhaps other forms of it?
A bill filed by state Sen. Lee Bright a day before the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., would allow S.C. residents to buy firearms, ammunition and gun accessories made in the state, even if they violate federal gun-control laws.
Bright, R-Roebuck, introduced The Firearms Freedom Act last year, but the bill died in committee. Bright re-introduced his bill on Dec. 13 — the day before 20 children and seven adults were killed in Newtown — and hopes for a better outcome this time. Despite the renewed and heated national debate over gun control in the wake of the Newtown shootings, Bright told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal he believes there is actually more enthusiasm now for his bill.
“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told the newspaper. In addition to South Carolina being a gun-friendly state, Bright’s positive outlook is also bolstered by a recent Gallup poll that showed the strident pro-gun National Rifle Association held a 54 percent favorability rating among Americans.
The concept behind the bill? The federal government may regulate interstate commerce, but South Carolina gun manufacturers should be able to skirt federal laws and make and sell whatever they like within the state since their guns, gun parts, and accessories would not cross state lines.
The concept isn’t exactly new or novel. Montana was the first state to pass such legislation, though it is currently tied up in litigation in federal court. Regardless, eight other states have passed identical legislation, and similar bills have been introduced in a score of other states, including South Carolina.
Perhaps such a law would be protected for state manufacturers by the power of the state police or National Guard?
Mike Vanderboegh has also commented on the nature of the resistance from his neck of the woods.
UPDATE: David Codrea correctly notes that concerning the resistance, there will be “many forms of it.”
UPDATE #2: The Other McCain comments as well on the resistance.
UPDATE #3: John Bernard writes in with this.
I can’t ever remember a politician throwing down a gauntlet like that. This guy is telling the entire population that he is prepared for whatever death and destruction (he apparently sees as inevitable). He is also telling at least one third of the population that we can expect to be taken out if we don’t comply.
And I haven’t heard a single argument from anyone in the media or congress or anywhere else for that matter.
I think we have just witnessed the death of the 2nd amendment because the dopes in Congress are not going to put their precious careers in harm’s way simply to protect something the majority wants abolished.
I want to see how they characterize those first few skirmishes when the goons come out “to play”.
SF
jb
UPDATE #4: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention.
On December 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm, MamaLiberty said:
He’s already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s perfectly willing to murder millions in order to push his agenda. Americans are about to learn that this includes THEM, in whatever numbers are deemed necessary – as long as he doesn’t personally have to touch anything, of course. Wonder how many of the “enforcement” folks are down with that.
It’s about to get ugly.
On December 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm, richard40 said:
I hope Obamas allies get ths bill to the floor. There are still senators and congressmen left in red and swing districts trying to pose as moderates. If they vote against this Obama will suffer a well deserved defeat. If they vote for it, they will have been smoked out for defeat in 2014. This is a gross overeach by Obama, he has no idea how strong pro gun sentiment is in this country. I have a friend who votes dem most of the time, but he is also strongly pro gun, and will punish anybody who suports this bill.
On December 31, 2012 at 7:01 pm, Fred said:
Calm down people. This is exactly the kind of over-reaction you are being tricked into, in order to justify a reaction. Let him hang himself with his own words. I VERY seriously doubt 90% of US LEOs or MIL would go door to door to seize guns, or fire on citizens.
Chill, and use your voting power for those House Repubs and Governors who buckle under.
On December 31, 2012 at 7:10 pm, JoeFromSidney said:
I disagree with Fred. It will be the credible threat of armed resistance that will make armed resistance unnecessary.
As for the cops and the police, “We were just obeying orders.” Would you really want to live in a society in which the cops and the police decided which orders they’d obey and which they wouldn’t?
On January 1, 2013 at 7:16 am, Cain said:
“As for the cops and the police, “We were just obeying orders.” Would you really want to live in a society in which the cops and the police decided which orders they’d obey and which they wouldn’t?”
I most certainly want to live in a society in which the police decide to disobey orders they know full well to be illegal/unconstitutional.
On January 1, 2013 at 10:17 am, Bill said:
I take the threat very seriously. I remember throughout the obamacare debacle many were saying it wouldn’t pass. By illegal action it did. Then many were saying the supreme court will strike it down. It didn’t. Then it was Obama won’t be re-elected. He was.
As for the argument that the troops and police won’t take our guns. Just remember what happened in Louisiana after hurricane katrina. The national guard was seizing weapons from people in their own homes. I believe many, too many, will indeed just follow orders.
One thing to do now is donate to the various gun rights organizations to support them in their lobbying against upcoming gun ban legislation. With the election just over, right now that is the only option we have.
On January 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm, IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in all 57 States said:
}}}} I think we have just witnessed the death of the 2nd amendment because the dopes in Congress are not going to put their precious careers in harm’s way simply to protect something the majority wants abolished.
Where’s this “majority”, Kemosabe? I see one hell of a loud minority. I don’t see a majority AT ALL.
}}}}}}}} “As for the cops and the police, “We were just obeying orders.” Would you really want to live in a society in which the cops and the police decided which orders they’d obey and which they wouldn’t?”
}}} I most certainly want to live in a society in which the police decide to disobey orders they know full well to be illegal/unconstitutional.
Indeed. Moreover, this happens EVERY DAY. What do you think a cop is doing when he lets you off a traffic stop with a warning? There’s nothing in the law that gives him the discretion to not enforce the law, but he does it, because he’s (hopefully) making a rational, on-the-scene decision that THIS case of the law’s possible breaking does not require society’s full attention.
If the cops enforced every one of the 10k+ pages of FEDERAL law alone, we’d need 10x the police force and 50x the court personnel. So they pick and choose which laws they’ll “flap” on (in the Swiftian sense).
On January 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think my majority, my friend means the majority of the dopes in Congress, not the American public.
On January 2, 2013 at 10:51 pm, MarineOfficer said:
I think that Montana (possibly Wyoming) attempted similar legislation in the past, but I’m not sure how it turned out, I’m googling that now.
There are 2 competing issues here. First, gun-grabbers are playing the long game (and winning it). It is well understood that electoral politics right now mean that the “middle” of the country still matters, despite the population moving more and more to the coasts. It is only a matter of time before coastal votes reach critical mas to overwhelm “red state” votes, and either alter the voting balance in the Congress, or flat out reach the ability to constrict gun laws down through federal legislation, or straight out amendment of the constitution through Article V. This is what we must fight against on one hand to maintain the legitimacy of our right to bear arms.
Secondly, I believe we must keep our “eyes on the prize” of what matters here. The “right to bear arms” is already a shadow of its former self, through such legislation as the National Firearms Act. I agree with Hershel completely that the “Assault Weapons Ban,” and similar measures are non-sense. But where I see them as dangerous is that they created inflated markets that made simple things like magazines bubble in value. How many Americans were priced out of the self-defense market by such laws? That’s the second prong of the strategy.
I do not think that “gun grabbing” legislation will pass the Congress. I also do not believe that a majority of military/law enforcement would enforce such laws. In the places that they would (NY with the NYPD comes to mind) there are few guns to grab. Speaking from personal experience, few Marines would exercise such an order.
But to paraphrase, “the cost of freedom is neverending vigilance” so we must remain vigilant as this threat will not recede. But we should also not overstate the danger, or descend into demagoguery.
On January 3, 2013 at 11:28 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Thanks for visiting my web site. I agree on every account. My son, a former Marine with a CAR from Iraq, most certainly would not enforce such an order. Besides, it would be contrary to Posse Comitatus.
I also believe, like you, that the ban will not pass Congress. But it will be a while before the attempt subsides.
On January 7, 2013 at 10:59 am, Joe Mama said:
“The federal government may regulate interstate commerce, but South Carolina gun manufacturers should be able to skirt federal laws and make and sell whatever they like within the state since their guns, gun parts, and accessories would not cross state lines.”
Oh, the .gov will say “a SC residents purchase of a SC weapon means they won’t buy a non-SC weapon therefore it affect intersate commerce”. See Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. We are screwed.
On January 7, 2013 at 11:10 am, Herschel Smith said:
Joe, you miss the point. In the atmosphere I am discussing, it won’t matter what the feds say or do. If something like this comes to pass, it will be enforced by the power of the state police, local LEOs and even N.G. if necessary.
There are states (Texas, perhaps S.C.) that will make it a crime to enforce federal laws inside the state, whether Obamacare, new gun control measures, or whatever. When enough federal agents go to state penitentiary for an extended stay, those prisons protected by N.G. troops, the feds will reconsider how they proceed.
On January 7, 2013 at 6:42 pm, Jim Harris said:
@ last H. Smith: The Feds may or may not “reconsider…” Unfortunately, there is precedent for the NG, while on state duty, being nationalized and immediately (according to the law) becoming federal troops under federal authority.
Whether or not the historical example should or should not have happened (G. Wallace at the “school house door”) is another discussion — and most of us would probably side with Pres. Eisenhower.
BUT — it set (or reset) a precedent where NG leaders (as well as other military) will have to decide whose orders to follow. It potentially sets a scenario for civil war — where an armed populace may tip the balance one way or the other (as it did in the Revolution, as well as other conflicts).
The great irony here: Those against guns may arm themselves with guns to engage in a war against guns!!! Go figure!!!!
On January 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm, Cassandra (of Troy) said:
Remember the urban trainig exercises that’ve been going on for 2-3 years, then factor in the massive transfer of serious milgear (up to/including armored vehicles & M2HBs) to LE, the rapidly expanding use of drones far from the U.S./Mex border & the openly discussed arming of same, the manufacture/prepositioning of armored checkpoint buildings, the purchase orders for major hot war amounts of pistol/rifle/shotgun/MG ammo, & the (AFAIK) historical fact that NO LE/mil org has en masse refused to obey an order to go after the citizenry, then tell me how much confidence should be placed in the belief that LE & mil forces would support a revolt against the Imperium.