Still, I’d say the boat done sailed on example 2, and 1 and 5 are sliding down the hill in the wrong direction.

I did think of another possible point to the test: “Laws” banning the photographing, audiorecording, or videorecording of law enforcement in public. How else to make others aware of the persecution of the Jews while they still technically enjoy the protection of the law?

III

(Test 1) At least a few states have “papers, please” statutes (Ohio is one, a lovely parting gift from Bob Taft [finger]); meanwhile, Real ID hangs in the balance.

(Test 2) The Supreme Court upheld “whatever” checkpoints a while ago, I believe.

(Test 3) Wait.

(Test 4) I know some states have this provision; I believe it’s a minority, and the number may decline if we do our jobs well.

(Test 5) Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions hasn’t technically happened, but handling large amounts of cash may draw (and has drawn) unwelcome attention from law enforcement and banks acting at the behest of government.

Of the five, we probably have the best chance to stop 3 (by stopping socialized medicine) and roll back 4. Test 1 might be rolled back by means of massive civil disobedience, but I doubt that would be an effective tactic for tests 2 and 5. A specific ammunition tax might be an additional JITA test (wouldn’t this run afoul of Murdock, though?).

III

The line in the sand problem has been around for a long time. Probably as long as there have been governments and people with the ability to overthrow them. I’m not sure “the line” can ever be clearly drawn and adhered to. If the line is made public knowledge then the oppressors can probably find a way around it to make actually crossing the line unnecessary or make holding the line untenable after a while. For example: Suppose your line is when they outlaw guns, come to take them away or even just require registration of all guns. Then what do you do when they impose a tax on ammo? Nothing? What when after 15 years the tax is $10/round? Or impose such harsh range restrictions that there are no ranges within a 100 miles of any major city?

Actually “shooting the bastards” is tough to justify for such transgressions. And who do you shoot under any circumstances? The duly elected politicians that enacted the legislation? The police enforcing the restrictions? The activists who pushed for the oppressive laws? The media who only told the one side of the story in their news coverage? And if you do figure out the answer can you tell anyone else what the answer is? If you do tell someone then it makes it much easier for the oppressors to catch you and send you to the gulag–for conspiracy even if you don’t actually drop the hammer on someone. And the prime directive of every revolutionary is to get away with it.

These are very, very tough problems with, to the best of my knowledge, no good answers. I have given it a lot of thought and I have written more on it.

Think about it and if you can improve on my suggestions please let me know.

By the time people realized it was time in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, it was too late. The masses were disarmed.

Take Australia, if a tyrannical government, or really a government that was tyrannical to just a segment of the population arose – could Australians still overthrow such a government.

If they come for one’s guns. That is one thing. But if they come for all of our guns, it’s time to hand them over one bullet at a time.

I’ve long been insulted by the hard-liners for being an “incrementalist” now termed a “pragmatist”. It seems the “pragmatic” side has their share of insulters too.

Can’t we all get along?

Anyway, it probably was cell phone noise, but 6 years ago, I could easily have drowned it out.

In fact, I haven’t really come across a gun rights activist who did not have a line in the sand. It’s just that we have each drawn our lines at different points.

My problem is that in theory the government has already crossed my line in the sand, although it has backed off from it for over a decade. Ruby Ridge and Waco are two perfect cases in point. The government’s actions in those two cases were unconscionable. But fortunately, they did not continue with such atrocities as a matter of routine.

And, interestingly, I did absolutely nothing about the government’s crossing my line except to raise holy hell about it…which may have been the best response we could have given under the circumstances. I don’t know.

There is a nebulous quality to all of this that is entirely subjective and depends on the values and circumstances of the individuals involved. Perhaps we should not be so quick to judge each other on the matter. We have our reasons for the positions we take.

Martyn

I was also having a hell of a time hearing Kurt.

Sorry about that–I was listening to the podcast just now–I was pretty tough to hear. Actually, the fact that I had to use a cell phone is probably only part of it. The same accident that put me in a wheelchair did a real number on my ability to project my voice.

I do try to make it a point to carry a big stick, though ;-).