• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anti-Gunners calling for Obama to declare Marshall Law!

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
It you consider yourself a pro-gun activist then you should be on the anti-gun activists' email list. Lately, they have been agitating shocking ideas that are very extreme (not to mention foreboding) as examples of the ends that they are willing to go to in their effort to achieve so-called common sense 'solutions'.

Now they are advocating the following:

"THE ONLY WAY FOR THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC TO BE HALTED IS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY. Then he can issue the unrestrained executive orders needed to halt it—executive orders he cannot issue without declaring a state of emergency." - Elliot Fineman - National Gun Victims Action Council, November 8, 2015

Read on:

THE FAIRY TALE OF A CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTION TO THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC AND WHY THE ONLY WAY TO HALT IT IS BY OBAMA DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY

Nov 08, 2015 11:53 pm | admin

by Elliot Fineman
CEO National Gun Victims Action Council
November 8, 2015

Once again all the gun violence prevention groups are certain that now—since the school shooting in Umpqua—we have reached a tipping point. Enough is enough they say—and this time it is different. But, this is exactly what they said after Columbine, and after Virginia Tech, and after Tucson, and after Sandy Hook and after Aurora—and it never was different. Why?

Problem is Structural

CHANGE THAT WOULD HALT THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. NOR CAN IT BE HALTED AT THE STATE LEVEL.
(Imagine seatbelts being mandated in a few states as a solution for safe driving compared to it being a national policy, or DUI laws in a few states as opposed to there being federal laws.)

To understand why we cannot get change at the federal level, it is helpful to look at a simplified model of the United States. Imagine the country consisted of only two states California and Wyoming. And further, imagine that all of the 38 million people in California wanted sane gun laws and all the 1 million people in Wyoming wanted no gun laws.

One could say that 38 million of the 39 million people in the country (97.4%) wanted sane gun laws. But to get them would require three senators to support them. The two senators from California certainly would but both senators from Wyoming would not. Despite virtually the whole two-state country wanting sane gun laws they could not be passed. THE PROBLEM IS STRUCTURAL.

After the horror of Sandy Hook—and despite everyone saying this would be a tipping point—universal background checks could not be passed in the Senate. There were 17 states where both senators voted against the bill (see link http://gunvictimsaction.org/states-against-bg-checks/

These states are pro-gun to the core and their elected senators will never vote for any sane gun law.

And, if by some miracle every senator in the 33 remaining states voted for a sane gun law there is not a chance that the irrational House of Representatives—controlled by legislators from highly pro-gun states—would pass it.

All the renewed enthusiasm, optimism and positive expectation from our side is not based on reason—it is a fantasy—a fairy tale. There is no way the gun violence epidemic can be halted—let alone a single sane gun law passed— by congressional action.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC TO BE HALTED IS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY. Then he can issue the unrestrained executive orders needed to halt it—executive orders he cannot issue without declaring a state of emergency.

To stop the gun violence epidemic it is essential you get friends, family, people in your world to sign the petition Change.org Petition for State of Emergency. If Obama does not act we will all be helpless spectators—and potential victims—of the gun violence epidemic.


The post THE FAIRY TALE OF A CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTION TO THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC AND WHY THE ONLY WAY TO HALT IT IS BY OBAMA DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY appeared first on National Gun Victims Action Council.

* * * *

A couple of things both positive and down-right disturbing that I take away from this article:

1) ;-) Freedom is winning!
2) ;-) Anti-gun activists are losing and they are conceding that they cannot win at either the federal or state level.
3) :-( These very people are willing to trash the Constitution, if necessary, to get their way via a presidential self-declared state of emergency (i.e. Marshall law). They believe that the president can and should declare himself a de-facto dictator!

Sign up for National Gun Victims Action Council email alerts here:

http://tinyurl.com/qdsbjss

Read another disturbing National Gun Victims Action Council press release here:

http://tinyurl.com/nh5dur6
 
Last edited:

Have Gun - Will Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
290
Location
Kenosha County, Wisconsin
One could say that 38 million of the 39 million people in the country (97.4%) wanted sane gun laws. from OP post #1


I don't want sane gun laws. meh.

Maybe this is an old letter ... 39 million people in this country? Letter from 1865?

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html
Maybe if you'd actually read the OP before commenting, you would understand it...
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
To understand why we cannot get change at the federal level, it is helpful to look at a simplified model of the United States. Imagine the country consisted of only two states California and Wyoming. And further, imagine that all of the 38 million people in California wanted sane gun laws and all the 1 million people in Wyoming wanted no gun laws.

One could say that 38 million of the 39 million people in the country (97.4%) wanted sane gun laws. But to get them would require three senators to support them. The two senators from California certainly would but both senators from Wyoming would not. Despite virtually the whole two-state country wanting sane gun laws they could not be passed. THE PROBLEM IS STRUCTURAL.
Thank heaven for the non-democratic mechanisms in our federal constitution like each State having equal representation in the Senate. There is no reason that urban centers should be enabled to trample on the rights of the entire nation.

Of course, what the gun grabbers don't quite concede here, is that even in many democrat-safe States, Senators and Representatives alike fear a repeat of the 1994 congressional elections. Blue-collar, blue-dog, democrat-leaning union members generally don't react well to having their RKBA attacked.

A couple of things both positive and down-right disturbing that I take away from this article:

1) ;-) Freedom is winning!
2) ;-) Anti-gun activists are losing and they are conceding that they cannot win at either the federal or state level.
3) :-( These very people are willing to trash the Constitution, if necessary, to get their way via a presidential self-declared state of emergency (i.e. Marshall law). They believe that the president can and should declare himself a de-facto dictator!
+1.

No surprise that those who are so hostile to our rights as to ignore the black letter language of the 2nd amendment and a couple of SCOTUS decisions, would be more than happy to shred the rest of the constitution as well.

But the message is mostly positive in that they are more or less accepting defeat at both the State and federal level, both legislatively and judicially. Furthermore, even among those who might generally dislike private gun ownership, or favor more restrictions on ownership, there are still a fair number who know well enough to know that unlimited government/presidential power is not in their long term interest. They may have a nice liberal loon in the White House today. But tomorrow could bring another Nixon, Reagan, W Bush, etc.

On RKBA, at least, the nation seems to be headed--however slowly--steadily in the correct direction.

Charles
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
I am forced to wonder just what the hell is in the crack that these people seem to be smoking.

Firstly, the National Emergencies Act totally obliterates their end reasoning. Even the amended Insurrection Act doesn't allow for an end run around congress.

And this???? Good God! These people scare the hell out of me.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
So, please show where in the constitution that allows for the suspension of the constitution for any reason.

Where is "marshall law" ever allowed for constitutionally?

Since when was the union of nations (states) supposed to be a democracy?

The letter/article/plan proposing the stripping of our rights is more reason for me to believe that the GP (general population) is a large group of idiots.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
The RKBA is not specifically excluded/protected from this - not even for personal defense. As I read it, you could be disarmed in an "Emergency." :(
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/04400000321.HTML
Uh...

Firearms and ammunition, state of emergency, no restrictions permitted.

44.101. The state, any political subdivision, or any person shall not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency.

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/04400001011.html?&me=firearms
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,755
Location
Granite State of Mind
"Marshall": a name
"Marshal": a law enforcement occupation
"Martial": of or pertaining to the military

"Martial law": military rule over civil affairs, including law enforcement, and trials by military authorities
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The RKBA is not specifically excluded/protected from this - not even for personal defense. As I read it, you could be disarmed in an "Emergency." :(
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/04400000321.HTML
Florida also recently passed a law that prohibits any such restrictions in an emergency. Specifically, 790.01 Unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons or concealed firearms, when it's permitted, even without a permit.

Heck, even uber-liberal Hawaii has such a law on their books, as do most states.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,464
Location
Dallas
Marshall plan, martial law - not marital either....

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
 
Top