The “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” or CSGV, has taken to their Facebook site encouraging their mouth breathing lemmings to call law enforcement any and every time they see someone carrying a firearm in public. They encourage their minions to tell law enforcement that they “don’t feel safe”…..though from the comments and CSGV responses, that the true intent is to [and I quote] hassle gun owners. They don’t merely give a marching order to call the police…but to call 911. Good job guys….tying up the emergency line for frivolous and false reports really speaks highly of the intellect that we’re dealing with here. /sarc
Swatting is the act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response based on the false report of an ongoing critical incident.
What they likely don’t realize, because let’s face it, we’re not dealing with the MENSA crowd here….is that aside from taking law enforcement away from working and/or repsonding to actual violations of the law, filing a false report [when there is no crime being committed] is a misdemeanor in many states. Some commenters advocate telling 911 that there is an ‘active shooter’, which of course, will result in a felony conviction for the caller. Others state that they will leave any establishment that permits open carry, and without paying. Nice.
The comments are rife with the usual menu of stale meme’s and outright lies…but the underlying theme is that their perceived [and non-existent] right to harass a citizen acting in a lawful manner, is somehow more important than the laws of their state and locality, as well as the burden placed upon the emergency services for their area.
So, I suppose it makes sense that those who would so casually disregard the rights protected under the Constitution, would likewise disregard state and local laws. Why is the gun control cabal such a criminal element?
* Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined as a pejorative, to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is sometimes used more generally to describe the “fear of firearms” or colloquially as the “fear of armed citizens.”
Libertas and Latte 
I am sure it is not just hassling gun owners. They probably are counting on worse to happen, such as trigger-happiness from SWAT teams.
The CSGV's advocacy of concentration camps is on record: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2012/05/04/arbeit-macht-frei-casino-resort-brought-to-you-by-csgv/
LikeLike
Having random armed civilians patrolling around recruitment stations is not a smart way of dealing with this. When you think about it, it's not helping anything or anyone. And anyone would call the police if they saw an armed civilian stranger patrolling around them. Best to just have military guards at the stations for now.
JMJ
LikeLike
CGSV isn't referring to recruiting stations. They're referring to open and concealed carry. As I opined at Silverfiddle's blog, I agree that armed civilians at recruiting stations are not desired solution.
LikeLike
No one hunts where you live?
PA has nearly a million licensed hunters. If they're reporting every gun in public view I hope they have unlimited calling.
BTW add a charge of interfering with a hunter to the swatting charge here.
LikeLike
It's hoplo as in hoplite: weapon, and phobia as in fear. Try reading the link in SoL's comment above. If I was to fear anyone it would be those who could countenance carting away otherwise law abiding citizens for exercising a long established right.
LikeLike
Hoplite is also the term for the citizen-soldiers of Sparta, who refused to disarm when the Persians demanded it.
It could be argued that Hoplophobia is a fear of those who can defend themselves. Which any authoritarian government has.
LikeLike
The 'hoplite” was the weapon. The tools he used are irrelevant. If Dervish wants us disarmed: μολὼν λαβέ
LikeLike
You were talking, as usual, out your ass, trying to denigrate the “right of the people to keep, and bear arms”, which is unequivocal. As your rights are not subject to my purview, mine are not subject to yours.
That you don't choose to exercise that particular right is naught to me, and entirely within your discretion. That I do, is none of your business.
That your hoplophobia controls your perspective on the topic is meaningless drivel. I am not responsible for your paranoid perceptions. Nor does it entitle you to take my rights away.
Rights are rights because they are beyond the reach of government, or the vagaries of opinion.
LikeLike
I'd rather be a hoplophobe than a phallophile. 😉
JMJ
LikeLike
Can't think of a credible rebuttal so you have to resort to insults Jersey? Typical.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Just for situational awareness, Dervish's posts are deleted as a matter of routine cleanup.
LikeLike
Jersey, I saw your post [where you referenced Heller come through my e-mail notification, but I don't see it here on the blog. I didn't delete it. You know I'd want the opportunity to refute your assertion regarding collective v. individual rights, and the meaning of “well regulated”. So, if you didn't save the text and want to post it again, here it is:
SoL, until the Heller decision, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted for a long time as a “collective right,” which was the effect of the “well-regulated militia” clause. It was never as simple as whether someone belonged to some formal state or national defense, but as a matter of the general good and security. With Heller, “well-regulated militia” lost the old meaning and now simply means that the whole populace is the “militia” and each individual is his own micro-“militia” so to speak.
You should read about it. There's a long history there. If it makes you feel better, though, gun rights are as loose as ever, and America has the weakest gun control in the developed world.
JMJ
LikeLike
Well, to be fair, he tried (see comment below).
LikeLike
The Militia Act of 1903 explicitly stated that there is an organized militia (state defense) and an unorganized militia (every man of draft-able age, though women were never stopped from possessing weapons).
The term regulated in the 1700s meant “disciplined,” not “subject to restrictions.” The 2nd Amendment did specifically state the right of the people.
LikeLike
Jersey: I respect your right not to own firearms. You should respect the rights of those law-abiding citizens who need to or prefer to. It's that simple.
LikeLike
Yep. In the parlance of the era, well regulated referred to something being “in good order”, as opposed to the modern connotation of “tightly controlled”.
Further, while some courts over time have ruled to the contrary, it is illogical to presume that one Amendment citing “the People” is defined as a collective right…while the rest refer to the right of the individual. That is further borne out by the many state Constitutions that contain a right to keep and bear arms directed explicitly as an individual right, and to be fair….phrased much more coherently than the 2A.
LikeLike
Jersey said: ” America has the weakest gun control in the developed world.”
That is one of the instances where American policy is better than that of other countries.
LikeLike
And that is the way it should be. It is sad that something so successful as “live and let live” is not popular among either left or right.
LikeLike
“Collective right” is fascist-speak for those few in power forcing their personal whims on this on the rest of us.
This is the real 1% vs 99% danger… far worse than the Occupy Movement's framing of the 99% issue ( which to them is an issue of their own greed and jealousy: trying to steal from those who work hard, have their act together, and earn.)
LikeLike
Yes that what what bothers me about progressivism more than anything else. Groups can have rights, but individuals cannot.
LikeLike
I think it's all individuals, SOL. But with progressivism/socialism/leftism, it's the few individuals who rule who have the rights, and they can dole them out to their subjects at a whim. Or not.
In marked contrast to everyone having these rights.
LikeLike
The ones at the top are definitely selfish individuals.That is why socialism fails. The ones at the very bottom tend to convert when it is their turn to be sacrificed, but in the middle tend to be the true believers in collectivism. The middle ranks either get purged (sometimes by other middle ranks such as the SS versus the SA) or they overthrow hypocritical leaders and install their own.
LikeLike
I respectfully disagree. The middle also contains ardent believers in individualism. Those who know, and recognize what can be achieved by one's own effort, and resent the interference of a government who would reduce us all to the least common denominator.
It's a hard sell convincing them that effort and enterprise is not entitled to it's rewards, but indifference and indolence is entitled to the fruits of their labor.
LikeLike
I was meaning ranks of a socialist hierarchy, not middle class. Yes, among the middle class, libertarianism is becoming more popular.
LikeLike
Vib: Already, anti-hunter zealots get so into harassing and assaulting hunters as it is.
LikeLike
^^^^^^
And there you have it. Before it gets deleted, a rare moment of honesty from a supporter of the anti-gun cabal. Innocent people do not have right to be left alone just because they are armed.
LikeLike
dmarks, I don't have anything against the ownership of guns, within reason. It's what we do with guns that concerns me. We have the right to keep and bear them, but not to do pass them around like baseball cards. And the government does have a prerogative to regulate the militia, like in that “within reason” caveat.
JMJ
LikeLike
Guns are given as gifts between people. There are also private sales. it is very rare that either of these results in a crime.
Most guns used in crime are stolen, because the stolen gun and its bullets will be traced back to an innocent person. False positives in crime investigations are one of many pitfalls of registration schemes.
LikeLike
Thanks, CI.
SoL, you're mixing subjects. The militia act had no effect on the way Americans owned guns. The federal government took little notice of the private arms sector, beyond some pretty strict and often crooked trade rules over the years, until Prohibition and the Great Depression. It was the mass availability of discreet but deadly hand guns and rapid firing guns, fast-paced urbanization, combined with the usual American moral hypocrisy of a free ride for scoundrels and a police state for everyone else, that really brought things to a head. We're still stuck on that head. Must be another phallic thing. 😉
JMJ
LikeLike
Right, dmarks. It's better that we have a higher rate of people getting shot. That's a good thing.
JMJ
LikeLike
SoL,
“Groups can have rights, but individuals cannot.”
Liberals and progressives do not believe that. You only think we do. As far as we see things, that statement doesn't even make sense.
JMJ
LikeLike
My point was that the militia being the whole populace goes way back before the Heller decision, and even before the Militia Act of 1903. The Militia Act of 1792 also considered everyone to be the militia.
Also, no supreme court interpretations can change the fact that the founders were specific about the people. The founders were opposed to the formation of a standing army. They recognized the dangers of a government monopoly on force after experiencing the harshness of the Redcoats toward colonials. By giving everyone the ability to resist, the chances of such a tyranny are minimized.
LikeLike
Progressives favor the community over its individual members. They may start with good intentions, but inevitably progressive regimes run into the moral dilemma of the needs of an individual or few, versus the needs of the many.
LikeLike
There are more stabbings than shootings. People also kill each other through poisonings, vehicular homicide, the occasional pipe bomb. Arsons, suffocations, beatings.
Complete destruction of technological civilization would still leave beatings.
LikeLike
We have the right to keep and bear them, but not to do pass them around like baseball cards.
Let's unpack this line and discard the hyper-sensationalized analogy. You're proffering that we [the People, as specified in the Constitution] have a natural and civil right to keep and bear arms [arms in this discussion, being a lawful item], but noright to buy, sell, barter or otherwise dispose of said lawful item, in the conduct of private transactions between consenting [and law abiding] citizens?
That makes as much sense as your earlier support for holding a [many time removed] manufacturer of a lawful item, punitively liable for the misuse of said item, by an end user. But, only this one class of lawful items.
Can you acknowledge your illogical bias?
LikeLike
They claim they favor the community, but more often than not it seems like it is just the interests of some in the community that they favor.
LikeLike
“We have the right to keep and bear them, but not to do pass them around like baseball cards.”
For this to be true, there'd have to be hundreds of new types of guns coming out each year, like with baseball cards.
LikeLike
I see some of your point, Jersey. We had a rather radical progressive here in comments advocate group/community/government “ownership and control” of all industry, “land, capital”… everything!
Some progressives are far far worse than others. And they do, as in this example, argue against allowing any individual rights. I don't think this totalitarian style of progressivism is yours, Jersey, but many people do in fact have this view.
So, Son is correct, and so are you Jersey. Depends on how extreme a brand of progressivism it is.
LikeLike
A good thing? Well Jersey, how about if we enforced existing law?
And last time I heard, the bunglers involved in fudging the Charleston shooter's criminal background records and let him have a gun he was not legally entitled to are still at their jobs.
LikeLike
The quality of discussion has gone up in the last few days.
LikeLike
I understand what the Founders intended, but we have to work with what they wrote and how it applies today in the real world. Until Heller, it was understood that the “militia” was a real thing with accountability to the armed citizen. Now it is just another word for “the people.” Heller didn't destroy 'well-regulated.” It destroyed “the militia.”
JMJ
LikeLike
We do not have the requisite laws in place to handle the distribution of weapons.
JMJ
LikeLike
The vast majority of Liberals are not communists in any sense. We want private property and industry, and for those to thrive. We are only different from conservatives by degree. There is no significant communist movement in this country.
JMJ
LikeLike
Yeah. We had a real extremist here, based on that definition. shudder.
LikeLike
We are only different from conservatives by degree. There is no significant communist movement in this country.
This I would agree with.
LikeLike
Not even remotely true, among the educated. Heller does however, seem to be a seminal sticking point with you. The Heller decision directly addresses your misconception of 'militia', citing multiple founding-era sources.
Oh please, please please…trot out the canard that the “Founders simply couldn't have anticipated the type or firearms we have today”.
C'mon….please?
LikeLike