Seventy-Two [were] Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston

reply to post by redoubt

I'm comfortable with that...

I'm with you. As bnrl said earlier, I already break the unjust laws.

You have a very well written post there and people need to remember that our nation was not born of a flock of sheep.

Yay, this.

Again.

Isn't this the fourth time this has been posted?

reply to post by gatorboi117


Every few months this same story from centuries ago gets posted tricking the readers that this happened recently.

butcherguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Once that happened, a generation or two would pass and then gun ownership would be as foreign as human ownership.

Interestingly, the same 'final word' of Constitutionality, the SCOTUS, backed up human ownership for quite some time in the US. I don't place a lot of faith in them.

Well, the Constitution was pretty firm on the idea of Slavery, so the Supreme Court was working as the Founding Fathers intended, that is, until the 13th Amendment.

A side note on the 13th Amendment, it doesn't abolish all slavery. Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can be punished with slavery as per the letter of the 13th Amendment.

reply to post by redoubt


I won't speak to the majority of your post, not because I take issue with it, but because it isn't relevant to my interests with regards to this thread. You are explaining justification for your actions based on reasoning outside of Constitutional Law. Regardless of whether your actions would be morally justified, the Constitution isn't a document of morals, it is a document of laws.

Having said that, I would like to talk about a term you used a couple of times in your post.

Political Criminal.

en.wikipedia.org...

Owning a firearm after a ban on them is enacted doesn't fall under the definition of Political Crime.

It would be a statutory crime, as you would be acting with mens re (a guilty mind), meaning you are willfully breaking statute, as opposed to being held for an offense that isn't neccassarily criminal but acting outside of the scope of the State.

If you are held under The Patriot Act, you are a political criminal. You are not subject to several of the protections (Interestingly enough, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments) afforded to those that have been accused of statutory crimes. You many not even be charged with a crime, merely detained indefinitely.

This would not be how a ban on guns would be enforced, unless you decided to turn your guns on the public when they are deemed illegal. I could see actions like that getting the label of domestic terrorist.

MichaelPMaccabee

butcherguy
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Once that happened, a generation or two would pass and then gun ownership would be as foreign as human ownership.

Interestingly, the same 'final word' of Constitutionality, the SCOTUS, backed up human ownership for quite some time in the US. I don't place a lot of faith in them.

Well, the Constitution was pretty firm on the idea of Slavery, so the Supreme Court was working as the Founding Fathers intended, that is, until the 13th Amendment.

A side note on the 13th Amendment, it doesn't abolish all slavery. Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can be punished with slavery as per the letter of the 13th Amendment.

My point was that the Court upheld the idea that certain humans (those with darker skin) are not citizens and could be bought and sold as property. This decision (Dred Scott) makes the SCOTUS quite fallible. It is universally viewed as the worst decision that the SCOTUS ever made. Most people still agree. I believe the vote was 7 to 2.... not exactly close.

So even though the Constitution may have flaws, the claim that the SCOTUS is a great final word in determining what is morally right or necessary to our well being is wrong.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

If you are held under The Patriot Act, you are a political criminal. You are not subject to several of the protections (Interestingly enough, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments) afforded to those that have been accused of statutory crimes. You many not even be charged with a crime, merely detained indefinitely.

This would not be how a ban on guns would be enforced, unless you decided to turn your guns on the public when they are deemed illegal. I could see actions like that getting the label of domestic terrorist.

*sigh*

Seeking to instill fear by painting a subject to project its darkest possible interpretation?

This will probably be the route taken by those who, if ever successful in destroying the constitution, then take to create a deeply negative stereotype of any who refuse to recognize it.

Let's see, it might go something like... guns are now illegal and those people who refuse to surrender and/or protest such a law under the American flag, are ee-ville terrorists. Thus, they could be detained under the guise of being what they really are not and held indefinitely in some gulag where they would eventually disappear altogether.

If that's the America that you want... you'll have to wait for my generation to die off of old age.

(Turn one's guns on the public? I can't believe you even went that route. Or... maybe I can.)

reply to post by gatorboi117



Heck the revolutionary war was hardly over when we had our first near war domestically and mass migration to the Application frontier to get away from the oppressive US tax system. LOL. These shows you see about modern day moonshiners are simply highlighting the reverberation of those days still seen in the present modern times.

butcherguy
So even though the Constitution may have flaws, the claim that the SCOTUS is a great final word in determining what is morally right or necessary to our well being is wrong.

I've made it clear in previous posts that the Constitution is not a list of morals, it is a list of laws. I make no claim that the SCOTUS has a moral authority, because they do not. All they have is a legal authority, as spelled out by the Constitution.

redoubt
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

If you are held under The Patriot Act, you are a political criminal. You are not subject to several of the protections (Interestingly enough, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments) afforded to those that have been accused of statutory crimes. You many not even be charged with a crime, merely detained indefinitely.

This would not be how a ban on guns would be enforced, unless you decided to turn your guns on the public when they are deemed illegal. I could see actions like that getting the label of domestic terrorist.

*sigh*

Seeking to instill fear by painting a subject to project its darkest possible interpretation?

This will probably be the route taken by those who, if ever successful in destroying the constitution, then take to create a deeply negative stereotype of any who refuse to recognize it.

Let's see, it might go something like... guns are now illegal and those people who refuse to surrender and/or protest such a law under the American flag, are ee-ville terrorists. Thus, they could be detained under the guise of being what they really are not and held indefinitely in some gulag where they would eventually disappear altogether.

If that's the America that you want... you'll have to wait for my generation to die off of old age.

(Turn one's guns on the public? I can't believe you even went that route. Or... maybe I can.)

Lighten up.

I am not 'instilling fear', I am simply sharing information. I'm not painting any pictures of evil cabals or multi-national global NWO lizards. I'm simply sharing information. If that information is scary, it is not my fault, but I do apologize if I have offended, as it isn't my purpose at all. I am just giving more accurate understanding of the difference between political crime and statutory crime.

The difference is important, and I hope that point got across.

When I said, "turn one's guns on the public", I meant the government, which is 'the public', as opposed to private citizens. Police will come for your guns if they are deemed illegal, public servants, not your neighbor, a private citizen... unless your neighbor is also a police officer.

If guns are made illegal, if the 2nd Amendment is overturned, it would be the will of the people, as the government is of the people. Unless the Government is no longer of the people, in which case, would the Constitution even be relevant anymore, and if it wouldn't be relevant, the entire conversation would be moot, because Rule of Law would no longer matter.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Rhetorics aside, it wasn't the will of the people to allow the brazen members of our "elected" congress pass these incorrigible acts (NDAA, Patriot Act, ACA) because apparently we, the people, can't actually fix them now they are law. We are being overwhelmed with bills and laws that make the average layman take notice, if they set their remotes down for a second and actually do the research (or read a book). Where do we have a tooth in this?

We may not but any type of repeal on that particular amendment may spark something resembling the largest civil disobedience this world has ever seen. Civil war, indubitably.

From the looks of all your posts on this thread, you are almost advocating its repeal. I have to wonder with all my being where this notion stems from? Do you want it? Please just say you are hypothetically speaking. I could see no person, more sympathetic to this global agenda, than someone who would support this type of thinking, seriously considering it.

It is a shame to see some of our country turn against the Bill of Rights that were specifically drafted for the protection of its citizens themselves.

Laws do not prevent disobedience. Look at all the DUI laws. Do you think they prevent DUI's? More emphatically speaking, do these people who wish to see a disarmament of this nation think that a new set of laws will stop the public from taking arms?

I don't. Not in the least.

reply to post by havok


I don't believe for a moment that Civil War would break out if the Second Amendment was repealed, seeing the process that an amendment to the constitution requires, mandated majorities would make the will of the People known. Couple that with human precedence of other societies banning guns and not going into civil war, and there is a good chance that it would happen without large incident.

Don't misconstrue my lack of belief in a Civil War outcome with an ease for repealing the Second Amendment. Changing the Constitution is difficult.

Gun crime would spike for a few decades, but those statistics would include simple ownership, not specifically gun violence.

Yes, I am totally for repealing the Second Amendment. It is archaic and ambiguous. The language is conflicting and far too open to interpretation. However, any repeal of the Second Amendment that I would vote for would merely be a rewrite with straight forward language, stating exactly what was meant in the spirit of the original Second Amendment.

Ah.. but that is the problem isn't it? Much like The Bible, the Second Amendment has as many interpretations as readers of the Constitution. Everyone seems to have their own take on it.

As for having a Globalist agenda... Let me assure you, I don't. The Conservatives can have the globe and do with it what they want after the Progressives have taken to the stars.

reply to post by spartacus699


You're not your

redoubt
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

It's getting late and I would like to say a few things, before bedtime, after reading your comments leading here...

This nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty. It was an escape from centuries of rule by wealth and royalty and a system that created classes of people that were bound to serves those set above them. They had little or no say in anything... in the laws they were subject to, in wars they were forced to fight or in how well they prospered no matter how hard they toiled.

That's just a few of the motivations that led us here.

Now, here we are in the magnificent 21st century. Our government and corporate hierarchy rose to become a new class of royalty and their desire was to merge 8+ billion humans into a single body of people. Some call this the 'globalist agenda'.

To reach this point, there was one nation standing in the way because it had this radical constitution and ideal that was specifically designed to head off just such an agenda.

The US could have never been defeated by war... so the first thing was to cripple it from within. To do this, our induustrial plant was allowed to flee to foreign shores, taking with it millions and millions of jobs, all but rendering the great middle class extinct. All those jobs and all the revenue it sent to run this country, is gone.

If there was an attack on the US today, we would have no steel industry to produce the materials we would need to build the tools of self defense. The ships we build today... the carrier George HW Bush and that new destroyer everyone is talking about? The steel that built them did not come from the US. In fact... we can't even make bullets anymore as the last lead smelting plant in Missouri is closing up shop.

The globalist almost have us where they want us but for one problem... we are a nation with civilians armed to the teeth.

Depending on what numbers you choose to believe, the US has between 80 million and 200 million firearms owned by between 70 and 100 million citizens. So, even if the UN or China or Russia were to land multiple divisions on our shores... and even though our own armed forces would quickly become depleted of equipment... 70-to-100 million people with guns and knowledgeable in their use... would make such a a military adventure more than problematic.

Millions of armed, partisan warriors fighting for their homeland could be a headache.

So... yeah. The globalist agenda frets this nation being armed and is working like hell to find a way to disassemble the constitution that binds them together and keeps them standing. It's also a pain in the neck to any domestic desires to turn this nation into something resembling George Orwell s darkest visions of tyranny.

So, in closing... one more time, yes. I am willing to risk the tag of being a political criminal because I won't surrender my guns on demand. I don't do it for me but for a dream of a life that has been almost ripped to shreds... and for a day when we can be the land of the free and home of the brave once again.

I'm comfortable with that...

G'night.

edit on 4-11-2013 by redoubt because: typo repair 1

edit on 4-11-2013 by redoubt because: typo repair2

You just won the internets with that post, my friend. Kudos.

70-to-100 million people with guns and knowledgeable in their use... would make such a a military adventure more than problematic.

reply to post by redoubt


Those vastly overstated numbers would constitute civilians with small arms. Not an army.

They took the stage & the head clown said he was doing good things in light of Snow dens revaluations. His Vice Treasonous clown couldn't even restrain from laughing, he covered his mouth in a desperate attempt to conceal his arrogance. A week later the next scandal covered up the biggest, and we just gave them what they needed to know. How far can they overreach? So yeah I think so. Google .. Obama's Purge of High ranking Military. It's scary how many people are being pushed out for not complying with this Clowns outrages actions that have military people confused at best.

Sorry but even typing the guys name makes me sick. I love my country, I don'y have to like,respect, or acknowledge the Silver Tongue Troll that could give a # about my countries Foundations. The ones hundreds of thousand died violently protecting.

MichaelPMaccabee

butcherguy
So even though the Constitution may have flaws, the claim that the SCOTUS is a great final word in determining what is morally right or necessary to our well being is wrong.

I've made it clear in previous posts that the Constitution is not a list of morals, it is a list of laws. I make no claim that the SCOTUS has a moral authority, because they do not. All they have is a legal authority, as spelled out by the Constitution.

You're making a lot of blah, blah, blah about a piece of paper. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Say it with me - PIECE... OF... PAPER.

It has no value other than the value that each individual is personally willing to give it. Just like the $100 bill I have in my wallet - PIECE... OF... PAPER (I know it is mostly cotton, don't get technical).

The ONLY value paper money has is the representative value each individual is willing to give it. When SHTF that paper money becomes worthless (arguably it already is). When SHTF the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

The legal authority that a governing body has over it's people is the legal authority that each person is willing to give that governing body. The Constitution is merely a piece of paper with a list of rights that the governing body claims to provide to us as long as we (the people) agree to do our best to allow the governing body to govern. But here is the sticking point - the governing body is slowly trying to take away many (not just 2nd Amendment) of those rights.

The question you need to ask yourself doesn't involve SOLELY the 2nd Amendment - how long before the people get tired of a governing body that is reneging these rights?

POTUS, SCOTUS, and COTUS be damned. The only authority they have over each individual is the authority that THAT specific individual is willing to give them. And if you haven't noticed by the replies, it's different for different people.