Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Your posts above :

"Can "civil insurrection" be far behind in this dystopic America?"

"This country is next in line for "cultural destruction" as "O-Bam-Bam" and the other misguided "New World Order Elites" plan for the "invasion". We are doomed but for the fact that we have guns!"

Glad to hear you don't mean it.


Steve Lewis 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings


Thanks. I have been wanting to hear someone try to explain how a revolution would succeed. Someone finally tried. You haven't addressed the 4) points I listed above.

1) What argument could validate shooting at Americans? Why would our military stand down while you are shooting at these people?

2) Why isn't yours an act of treason?

3) Your violence means economic chaos. The further you get, the larger the chaos. Why should that chaos attract bystanders at any level? Why should anyone believe your government in the aftermath would be better than today?

4) You will have destabilized the country both economically and politically. Why presume only "once-close" allies will be involved? How is your effort not useful to our enemies?

I consider these arguments to be distant hypotheticals. Disappointing to read yours are not. You name current Democrats as targets. Tom's post concurs, saying the insurrection is near. The truth is you would both cringe if someone shot any of those officials, whether in the name of the 2nd Amendment or otherwise. Am I wrong?


Steve Lewis 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings


We can agree on one point - Washington is corrupt and serves the wealthy and big business first, and the people last. The common denominator of the abuse is corrupt money. Private interests are relatively new but serious addition to the problem after Citizens United. Corporate and big business have corrupted DC from the beginning. Their sway in lobbying and revolving doors is indeed fascism. I've argued the same for years.

But we are in stark disagreement in the value that remains. I see nothing in your statements that would hinder the wealthy or big business. To name only a few items, corporate pollution, price collusion and monopoly would be the rule if we adopt your anti-government, constitution-only, view. It seems "The People" are even more screwed in your politics.

Democracy is a myth? Sorry if you feel that way. Democracy takes people continuing to care and engage with the tools we have. We have more say at the lower levels, but these do make a difference, eventually even in DC. I'm dumbfounded to read argument that guns are viable response to government - coming from people I've never seen at city or county meetings. I've been to state and county caucuses. It isn't pretty or fun, and certainly county makes better sense than state, but when my Democratic rep comes to town I can say "why haven't you honored the platform of your caucuses?"

If you cannot make the same effort, I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of preserving liberty.


Steve Lewis 3 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Revolution is easy? No.

Most colonists were on the fence, but increasingly favored the revolution over time. About 20% opposed the revolution. Delegates from the colonies attending the Continental Congress set the course toward independence.

Then? Britain was an occupying force relying on supplies and reinforcements traversing an ocean. The patriots had nearly the same munitions as the British, both sides using muskets. The French came to our aid.

Today? I've just described why guns won't work against the U.S. government today. But go ahead, tell us how it works.


Steve Lewis 3 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

4) Say I'm wrong, team x wins and we do get our country back as team x found it. All we change is a, b, and c. The rest of the alphabet won't change. Are a, b, and c that valuable to 300 million Americans? Was it worth a few trillion dollars less in GDP each of the next 10 years during a U.S. identity crisis? Who will trade with us during the game change? Equally likely, after a serious conflict required for the captain to succeed, we'll be easy picking for the rest of the global powers. U.S. done?

I've been asking for someone to describe a path where armed resistance succeeds in this country. No response. Because there is isn't one. Civil disobedience is something else. But civil disobedience doesn't give a damn how many rounds of ammo DHS has.

Reality is in part, what the Captain writes:

Will we allow (ANYONE) to overthrow our (United States) and its legal processes to amend injustices...

Then not so real: "If left unresolved..." Is stating grounds exist for armed conflict with his country. It might be about the Nth amendment to team x, but to the vast majority of your country it will quickly be about treason. The fatal mistake is assuming this country could EVER negotiate its laws at the point of anyone's gun.

In my view, our founding fathers would be astonished at the Captain's exceedingly shallow case against his country as he declares civil war.


Steve Lewis"


Steve Lewis 3 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Dear Sheriff, (2013)

"Reading yesterday on some conservative .coms. The ACLU is against some parts of the national gun legislation, on grounds of privacy from record keeping (above some level). A national security agency has already exempted itself from that. Also I've been reading about N.Y. State and planned resistance to their gun laws. Trying to understand the whole, as are you. Just got to my emails.

This Hestilow letter: The text is the reverse of what the Captain claims. It is a Captain stating grounds exist for him to attack his country.

I've always felt DHS was a conservative wing creation. Same for the Patriot Act. Obama has extended what conservatives created. I don't like that either. Seems the bottom line is a U.S. state of fear too many profit from, and no president wants to be the "under-prepared one". Conservatives are now afraid of what they forcefully advocated? That is very poor background for the Captain's letter.

1) The Captain never explains why this government would attack its citizens. His fears that "it wants to?" are his entire premise? Lacking any argument of "why", where is the tyranny the Captain accuses? The country is evenly split on gun control. That is not tyranny. Government stockpiling any amount of ordinance is not tyranny. Easier made is the case of the Captain's paranoia. Easier made is the case that the Captain is a domestic threat. Disarm DHS because armed domestic violence portends. Is he kidding? DHS will be logically prompted to do what Coloradoans just did - order more ammo.

2) Going farther, an over-reaction or miscalculation by the Captain's team x will define what he started in a way he never intended. Conversely, his good planning with a team means a charge of conspiracy to treason. His 2nd amendment cause pales quickly in either case.

3) Without a premise larger than gun rights, the hypothetical conflict and it's public reaction becomes about who is "right" and who suffers. The Captain loses both, because he quickly loses the latter. The economic disruption and insecurities attached, say in New York, to armed civil conflict would push the public onto the side of the government they know vs. team x shooting at that government. Expand the conflict to other states? Frankly there isn't an argument big enough. Trade 230 years of building a govt. we understand for... what does the Captain have in mind? Do YOU trust him? The uniform suggests we will have.... what form of govt?

Put another way, the captain completely ignores the #1 priority of economic security in American lives. At the extreme hypothetical, he threatens chaos and starving families so he can feel good about a "higher obligation" to the 2nd amendment? What was the threat again? Unbelievably narrow priorities may be one flaw of a military career.


Steve Lewis 3 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings


For the benefit of others above, I'll repeat, my argument is for registering guns. I own guns. Do not want Americans disarmed, but owners should be responsible for their weapons. The Wayne Pierre speech linked above, "enforce the existing laws", completely (and very profitably $$) ignores the supply side of the crime equation, the existing no-sale-documention-needed laws that enable bloody profits selling guns into crime. Your gun lobby places ALL the responsibility for resolving gun violence on others - while gun owners are happy to have ZERO responsibility for the problem.

Correct me if I am wrong Joe: the arguments against gun registration are a) "Civilian guns are necessary to keep government in check." and b) "Government will use gun registration to confiscate all American guns." The latter b) is not possible with 2nd Amendment. You might lose assault rifles. If you oppose that your argument rests on a). In other words, we are talking about fighting tyranny.

You believe your right to fight tyranny is being attacked. But every possible scenario where you fight our government with guns is a dead end. Politically, economically, and militarily, every outcome is the same - you are attacking our country.

One conservative county sheriff made an effort to engage a variety of opinions during the Colorado gun conversations of 2013. In a brief exchange of emails, he also asked for my opinion. My reply noted the Hestilow letter and addressed its failures. I'll post that. You tell me where I go wrong.


Steve Lewis 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

That would be an "independent" thinker? Little doubt his views were grown in ultra conservative echo chambers. Dangerously wrong to ignore contrary views, Joe.

"Correction : An early version of this article cited a report that DHS had also purchased an additional 21.6 million bullets. This number appears to be incorrect. The actual number shown on the purchase invoice  released is approximately 240,000 additional rounds."

"Put bluntly, unless the GAO is under the threat of having their families interred in FEMA camps, most of what you’re hearing from InfoWars and similarly credible sites is junk."


Steve Lewis 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!

Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.

I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.

We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!


Captain Terry M. Hestilow

United States Army, Retired

Fort Worth, Texas

March 23, 2013