Quote of the day—Craig DeLuz

The right to keep and bear arms is not up for popular debate. It’s a constitutionally enumerated civil right.

Craig DeLuz
Firearms Policy Coalition spokesman
January 12, 2016
Gun debate: Californians support more gun control, poll finds
[Technically he is correct. But from a practical standpoint he is wrong. If a large majority wish to hurt us any way they can, as one person in the article said regarding buying ammunition, “Anything that slows the process down, I’m all for,” the local courts will ultimately find some weasel words to allow it. We have to change the culture or we need some very strong rulings from higher courts.

With dwindling percentages of gun owners in the most oppressed states and significant obstacles for bringing new people into our camp changing the culture is probably nearly a lost cause in these areas.

Therefore getting a pro-freedom president in the Whitehouse next January is our do or die battle for states like California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, etc. Otherwise the Supreme Court will, for all intents and purposes, eviscerate the Heller and McDonald decisions.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Craig DeLuz

  1. “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” thomas jefferson.

    i think a fairly authoritative view. and, persuasive. just enough to let ’em know that we are serious.

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon

  2. The right of the people to be secure in their homes, persons, papers, and effects is not subject to debate either, but it too is frequently violated. As is the right of indictment only by grand jury, or of not being tried twice, or of having private property taken other than for public purpose, or …
    The reality is that the Constitution has had very little practical meaning for at least 150 years now. Politicians of both parties go out of their way to stomp on the few remaining fragments in their mad drive to take us straight to the constitutionless European model.

    • And with Hillary or Sanders verses Trump, it’s becoming the European Right/Left spectrum in the U.S.– The Socialists verses the National Socialists. Somethere along the process, principles have utterly ceased to matter for millions of Americans. Former teaparty champion, Sarah Palin (but she never really was) is now paired up with the National Socialist.

      So anyway, we’re not voting our way out of this. No way, no how. It has to come up from the grass roots first, and it will have to involve Christians, Jews agnostics, atheists and former “liberals” getting together, solidly, behind the American Principles.

      • Around my AO, Sarah Palin’s endorsement is toxic. We kinda liked her in 2008, when she stood for God, guns, and family values. Since then:
        – Her daughter has had not one, but two children out-of-wedlock, and
        – Her son has recently been arrested for domestic battery.

        That kinda kills the “stands for family values” thing, and endorsing Trump – a man who proudly states he feels he has nothing to repent or be forgiven for (i.e. he is without sin) – kinda kills the “stands for God” thing.

        And guns? Let’s just say that being from Alaska, on it’s own, isn’t good enough anymore.

        Sarah Palin has become a Tina-Fey-parody of what we liked about her, so her endorsement (again, speaking only of my AO) will likely harm Trump more than it helps him.

  3. I keep wondering if forced disarmament will be the thing that brings on the revolution. Armed resistance is the only thing I can see that will keep the US from becoming Socialist. And even then I think it will split the US into the Socialist part and the Freedom part.

    But we have seen Australia turn in its guns with no shots fired so I have my doubts the US population is any more belligerent. Are there really three percent that are willing to die for saving the republic? I have my own doubts as I have a young daughter and wife I don’t want to leave to fend for themselves.

    I get the feeling that many will just hide the guns, not turn them in. But they will no longer be able to use them so they will be as good as turned in, a poor victory at best. I guess I have given up hope. I feel that real, freedom first, small government conservatives are no longer a large enough % of the population to win.

    • I don’t know about this belief that Americans would be so tepid as to submit like the British and the Australians. I think any type of turn them in or else program would probably be the red line. Recall that it only took one or two people in recent incidents to create total chaos in the D.C. area and Los Angeles. Imagine just a few dozen patriots going with asymmetrical warfare on the State?

      I think we are past the tipping point in our favor. We have a lot more concealed carry, more women shooters, and just finished a huge buying spree of firearms and ammunition during the last 7 years. I would say that a bunch of America has prepared for war. We started our American Revolutionary War with less provocations. Who knows what might light the powder keg?

    • I’m with Matt Bracken on this. My answer to your hypothesis is yes — but more specifically, it will split the country into two or three parts: the coastal people’s republic(s), and the “flyover country” where liberty still prevails.

  4. The only way I can see to save the country is the national recognition of concealed carry licenses.

    Guns are very much the canary in the coal mine of liberty; Unless/until we are able to secure the ability to effectively exercise that liberty nationally, we won’t make any more progress.

    The progress we have made in the states is arguably the direct result of our success in legislatively legalizing, and then socially normalizing, a process to permit the carrying of concealed firearms in public. This is the “gateway drug” for the liberty movement in general, and making national reciprocity a reality will permanently change the political landscape for the better.

    • That might be a good start. The simplest way would be the one proposed by Smith & Zelman in their novel “Hope” — the recognition that “full faith and credence” of CC permits means treating them just like state driver’s licenses. Combine that with Vermont Carry and good things happen.

      Unfortunately, such an idea could easily be perverted into Federal pre-emption, with state permits replaced by a Federal permit whose requirements are more restrictive than any state one. Maybe “may issue” only. Or maybe “shall issue” but good only for a specific firearm, as in NM. Or requiring a week of training. Or a $100 fee every year. Or …

      As Lyle would no doubt point out, we already have a CC permit in the law: the 2nd amendment (by itself, or for those who can’t read plain English, the 2nd combined with the 14th).

Comments are closed.