# Repealing the Second Amendment?



## PrepperForums (Nov 21, 2014)

Is it even possible for the Second Amendment to be repealed?

Are you concerned that this could be a possibility?

_"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_



> Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed Tuesday, and he urged demonstrators pressing for gun control to do the same. His bold proposal has prompted many questions about whether such a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution is legally - let alone politically - possible. *Repealing the Second Amendment - is it even possible?*


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Even the democrats are saying it would be next to impossible.

Lots and lots of hoops to jump through.

It's just not a matter of Congress voting on it.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Ain’t gonna happen!


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

I don’t see it happening anytime soon, but we’ve got a generation up and coming that could very well make it happen, hopefully they will come to their senses and figure out exactly what the 2nd Amendment about......


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

The 2nd is not about guns or hunting, it's about government control. If sheople would get this through their heads all this BS would end. Great job teachers. 

Besides it's a "right", how do you amend that??


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Won't happen in the near term. They don't really need to repeal 2A and don't have the power as yet. They are content playing the long game for now. Piece by tiny piece. 

There is a poll out there I think, among the younger crowed of course, that states they believe the constitution is old and outdated, not relevant and needs to be changed or gone altogether. We are loosing ground day by day with every graduating class of every high school and college in the country. Eventually they will have the numbers.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

I'd be willing to say 99% of the US population doesn't even know what it takes to change/overturn an amendment.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

It has to go before all the state's legislatures also.

That's why it's so important to vote in local elections...even if you think they don't matter.

These things sneak up on you and all of a sudden, people are scratching their heads...."How'd that happen"?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

I don't think the real danger is the repeal of the 2nd.

I'm more afraid of a tax ($.03 per loaded round, . . . $.02 per bare bullet, . . . $5 per pound of powder, . . . etc.) which would ostensibly be touted to build a "fund" for victims of gun violence.

I can see the Hollywood types putting together a commercial similar to their "protect these poor puppies" tear-jerker, . . . using the pictures of the kids alongside a grave site, . . . and making a national push out of it.

Congress would be all for it (more $$$$ to squander), . . . lefties would be all for it (gut punching the shooting public), . . . and the kids and their handlers COULD GET something like this passed a whole lot easier than doing away with the 2nd.

Once it is in place, . . . it then only takes a bureaucrat-in-charge to incrementally increase the tax, . . . eventually we'd be paying more tax than cost for the ammo. 

THEN top it off with some inherently difficult reporting procedures for the LGS and anyone else selling ammo, . . . 

Scary times we live in.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Robie said:


> It has to go before all the state's legislatures also.
> 
> That's why it's so important to vote in local elections...even if you think they don't matter.
> 
> These things sneak up on you and all of a sudden, people are scratching their heads...."How'd that happen"?


The local guys go on to become national. Put the right people in locally and you won't have to fight the idiots that should never have been elected class president let alone senator.

I am watching my back yard much more closely.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

John Paul Stevens said as much when he wrote the dissenting opinion on Heller VS DC. Thank god he's retired and not activly making decisions that affect millions of Americans any more.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> John Paul Stevens said as much when he wrote the dissenting opinion on Heller VS DC. Thank god he's retired and not activly making decisions that affect millions of Americans any more.


 At least 4 more just like him on the court now . Just waiting for their chance to be hero's


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Who is going to enforce a "gun confiscation"? Would that be the same FBI that was told multiple times the FL shooter was going to shoot up a school, yet did nothing? Would it be enforced by the same Broward County Sheriff that went to the shooter's home 38 times, yet did nothing?

So please tell me, even IF the 2A were repealed, who is going to enforce it?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Inor said:


> Who is going to enforce a "gun confiscation"? Would that be the same FBI that was told multiple times the FL shooter was going to shoot up a school, yet did nothing? Would it be enforced by the same Broward County Sheriff that went to the shooter's home 38 times, yet did nothing?
> 
> So please tell me, even IF the 2A were repealed, who is going to enforce it?


The U.N. probably. By then, there would be no functional federal government.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think repealing the 2A would be a ridiculous act, similiar to Prohibition. Many countries have no 2A, yet they retain weapons to defend themselves. The right to defend yourself is basic to all living beings, it is natural law and isn't even in question. The government didn't GIVE us the right to own weapons by including the 2A in the Constitution, it simply enumerated a God given right. A right not given cannot be taken away.


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think repealing the 2A would be a ridiculous act, similiar to Prohibition. Many countries have no 2A, yet they retain weapons to defend themselves. The right to defend yourself is basic to all living beings, it is natural law and isn't even in question. The government didn't GIVE us the right to own weapons by including the 2A in the Constitution, it simply enumerated a God given right. A right not given cannot be taken away.


Yet we allow them to put restrictions all over it, and would be charged, arrested, convicted if we didn't follow their rules. We have let our own liberty slip into the abyss...

Peace,
Michael J.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Michael_Js said:


> Yet we allow them to put restrictions all over it, and would be charged, arrested, convicted if we didn't follow their rules. We have let our own liberty slip into the abyss...
> 
> Peace,
> Michael J.


I kind of agree with some restrictions, so am I part of the problem? I don't want Joe Bunda owning a rocket launcher, or BLM fielding fighter planes. Where do you draw the line? The thousands of rules 'the regulators' have managed to get codified into law all sounded so reasonable at the time. How does the old saw go: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

A Must watch


----------



## Stockton (Jun 21, 2017)

Someone on facebook touted that 1 in 5 American's want to repeal
the 2nd amendment. Good that means 4 in 5 don't. Its not going
anywhere. The left doesn't want that debate. Because they lose.

The left wants power. They get it taking away their opponents money
and giving it to those who vote for them. They'd like our gun rights
to cost us more. This way there are fewer gun right voters. They 
get more power.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

You walk by an old dog on a chain. You kick him.
He doesn't budge. Not a growl, not a whimper.
You see scars on his face, and neck. "What a life this dog must have been lived?" you ponder to yourself.
You walk by, and kick him again.
Everyday, you walk by, and kick the dog. Harder, harder, because, he doesn't seem to feel it. You want to see him wince, to know you are dominant over his life. 
One day, after your daily abuse of kicking this old scarred up dog, his collar breaks, as your walking away.
The dog, without a bark, or even a sound, springs into action, and takes you down, ripping out your jugular vein from your throat.
As the warm blood puddles below you, and your vision starts to get tunnel like and blurry, you realize, with three breaths left in you, that you should have LEFT THAT DOG ALONE.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Deebo said:


> You walk by an old dog on a chain. You kick him.
> He doesn't budge. Not a growl, not a whimper.
> You see scars on his face, and neck. "What a life this dog must have been lived?" you ponder to yourself.
> You walk by, and kick him again.
> ...


I think we need to make this into T-shirts with the headline: The 2A summarized for Liberals.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Asking if the 2A can be repealed is like asking if tyranny and arbitrary rule is possible. Of course, it is.

The Bill of Rights was viewed as rights endowed us by our Creator. Fearing the federal government would forget about that, the anti-Federalists would not agree to sign on with the notion of the Constitution unless it was agreed that the Bill of Rights would be crafted and added at a later date.

As those rights were endowed by God, the government doesn't have the authority to take them away from the people. Even if a majority of the people wanted to repeal the 2A, it would be a violation of the laws of nature and nature's God to do it. Tyranny by democracy (majority wins the day) is still tyranny.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Denton said:


> Asking if the 2A can be repealed is like asking if tyranny and arbitrary rule is possible. Of course, it is.
> 
> The Bill of Rights was viewed as rights endowed us by our Creator. Fearing the federal government would forget about that, the anti-Federalists would not agree to sign on with the notion of the Constitution unless it was agreed that the Bill of Rights would be crafted and added at a later date.
> 
> As those rights were endowed by God, the government doesn't have the authority to take them away from the people. Even if a majority of the people wanted to repeal the 2A, it would be a violation of the laws of nature and nature's God to do it. Tyranny by democracy (majority wins the day) is still tyranny.


People tend to forget just why we revolted against England. Seems that we need to start by putting veterans into our schools - guards, teachers, conselors and the like and return our education system to the way it was back in the 50's and 60's.

Taxing me with no one in parlament to speak for me?
Quartering soldiers in my home?
Taking away my ability to defend my family from marauders - read Injins?
Searching my home without a warrant?


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Sasquatch said:


> I think we need to make this into T-shirts with the headline: The 2A summarized for Liberals.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I copied and posted it to my facebook page also.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

He is a fine example of a pencil-necked punk, who has never been in a fight, much less faced down 3 attackers at once. Otherwise, he would be for the Second Amendment.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

> All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.


Complacency kills.
A liberal minority can get control of the assemblies and pass all kinds of nonsense.
It happened in Germany, it's happening in California.
Don't think it can't happen at the national level. It would mean civil war.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Not without a lot of somebodies getting their asses shot.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

People do not forget why we rebelled against England-- That is no longer part of any school teachings.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than man's codified recognition of a right.
Of course it "can" be repealed.
Doing so won't change anything from a reality standpoint.
We will still have the same right to self-defense as always. (I challenge anyone to prove me wrong)
We just won't have the government's guarantee of protection for the right.

As to the topic of whether it ever will be repealed... I can't pretend to know.
It will certainly be tried, eventually.
Depending on how far the effort goes, the country could become a bloody mess, figuratively and literally.

The more likely scenario is a slow erosion effort until the 2nd Amendment is only *allowed* to mean that you are legal allowed to defend only your own property from a criminal who has their own weapon and has told you in advance that they will be coming to take your things, and you will be allowed a wooden sword with which to defend said property.
Good luck.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Sasquatch said:


> I think we need to make this into T-shirts with the headline: The 2A summarized for Liberals..............


Won't do any good.

1. Liberals don't understand. They can't. They're programming is illogical. They're mis-wired internally. 
2. They won't read past the first six words.


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

rstanek said:


> I don't see it happening anytime soon, but we've got a generation up and coming that could very well make it happen, hopefully they will come to their senses and figure out exactly what the 2nd Amendment about......


I hope I am dead and buried before this happens.

Years ago Rush told people to mail two teabags to your Senators and congressman every week. I did that and he knew who I was. We need to remind them that we fought a war a few years back over taxation without representation. This tax talked about for bullets, powder, primers and cartridges etc, is that not taxation without representation? I know if they even start talking seriously about, I will purchase enough to handload thousands of rounds before it happens.


----------



## NewRiverGeorge (Jan 2, 2018)

How about they march for something useful? Like say...term limits??


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

NewRiverGeorge said:


> How about they march for something useful? Like say...term limits??


Because that makes sense. lain:


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

The time to think ahead is NOW! Know what you need to do and when you need to do it. Vote to stop the liberals from running your life&#8230;even if you don't like guns, you better think about what happens when insurrection breaks out.

Think They'll Never 'Come and Take' Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again
Scott Morefield
Think They'll Never 'Come and Take' Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again
The recent gun control debate ignited by last month's tragedy in Parkland, Florida, has liberals trotting out what has become a favorite Leftist talking point - Australia's 1996 National Agreement on Firearms, an act which, among other things, severely restricted semi-automatic rifles after a similarly horrific mass shooting.
Liberals consider the cornerstone of the law, a massive forced gun buyback program, a "common sense" approach to what might otherwise be perceived by gun owners as an unwelcome curtailing of traditional American freedoms. Sure, the government may be forcing gun owners to make the transaction, but exchanging money for items IS capitalism, right? And it sure beats the alternative, a Communist-style door-to-door roundup of weapons that both sides agree would likely lead to civil war.

For the rest of the article:
https://townhall.com/columnists/sco...-without-an-armed-revolt-think-again-n2459868


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

Real Old Man said:


> People tend to forget just why we revolted against England. Seems that we need to start by putting veterans into our schools - guards, teachers, conselors and the like and return our education system to the way it was back in the 50's and 60's....<snip>


That why we have Common Core education; to do just that, make sure we do NOT have guards, teachers, conselors and the like in our schools. Spoke to middle and high school student recently and to my dismay, discovered WWII in the history books is 2 pages. You think they spend time learning about this country's formative years? Heck, Vietnam is about as relevant, significant as the Civil War.

Aaah yes, the dumbing down of America.


----------



## RJAMES (Dec 23, 2016)

I do not think it will be changed if the nation moves to adopt some changes . Background checks on all sales private and federal licensed dealer. Tighten up on reporting by agencies so the background check works. It think either a magazine size limit or the pressure will be to reinstate the 1994 law with a change in the definition on what weapons / type weapons it applies to. 

Changes or pressure will build to repeal. To those saying it will never - 27. 

Took years and a war to convince enough folks to adopt the 13, 14 and 15 amendments, decades to pass the 19th. 

Not saying tomorrow but I can see it happening.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Too funny not to share.









Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Let's put this into context. If popular decision can remove the protection of your right to defend the nation from tyranny, what other rights do you think the government can remove?

If you can be taken, ALL of the God-given rights are fair game.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Keep in mind, the Establishment wants to remove your right to speak your mind, wants to remove your right to religion and wants to only have the official press.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Denton said:


> Keep in mind, the Establishment wants to remove your right to speak your mind, wants to remove your right to religion and wants to only have the official press.


Bbbbbut Comrade!


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> Let's put this into context. If popular decision can remove the protection of your right to defend the nation from tyranny, what other rights do you think the government can remove?
> 
> If you can be taken, ALL of the God-given rights are fair game.





Denton said:


> Keep in mind, the Establishment wants to remove your right to speak your mind, wants to remove your right to religion and wants to only have the official press.


Once they get the guns, that is all she wrote; because firearms in the hands of staunch defenders, is all that stops America from becoming a tyranny. Once the guns are gone, all that remains is a mopping up operation.


----------



## C.L.Ripley (Jul 6, 2014)

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. 

However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. 

Judge Alex Kozinski dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (9th circuit 2003)


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Urinal Cake said:


> Sure, the government may be forcing gun owners to make the transaction, but exchanging money for items IS capitalism, right? And it sure beats the alternative, a Communist-style door-to-door roundup of weapons that both sides agree would likely lead to civil war.


If my only legal option is the forced surrender of arms, I'll take the alternative and take my chances. May God have mercy on their souls. I won't.

I've been sitting on an article I happened across while searching the internet for a law congress passed in 1941 prohibiting the creation of a federal gun register. After seeing the use of such a register by the Nazis, our government passed a law making such use illegal. It was included as part of "The Property Requisition Act" of 1941. (Not an outright ban on the creation, but in the use of the list created at that time)
Please Google that for yourselves.
Back to the article... It lays out the use of gun confiscation in Europe during the 1940s, and is a great read. (from all places, The Washington Post)
One quote made me stop cold in my reading. It took a solid minute to recover from the message imparted.
From a young Jewish poet, Abba Kovner, living in Lithuania who wanted to spread the news of the Nazi's full and real intentions, he wrote this: (emphasis added)


> "Let us not go to slaughter like sheep! Jewish youth, do not trust the deceivers. . . . Hitler has invented a system for the destruction of all the Jews on Europe&#8230;.It is true that we are weak and we have nobody to help us. *But our only dignified answer to the enemy must be resistance! Brothers, it is better to die like free fighters than to live by the murderer's grace. Resist until your last breath!*"


A few words in, I could feel my heart in my throat, feel this young man's passion, feel the real pain he was trying to convey. Reading that he expected no help caused aanother lump in my throat. I stopped breathing for a moment at the underlined portion.
These were real people. This really happened. Can we ever say with certainty that it won't happen again?

No, I don't think our government has reached Nazi-level tyranny. But without the use of arms by free citizens, what would stand to stop them? Would we hope and pray that the most powerful nation in the world would come to our rescue? Oh... wait. Damn...


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Confiscation in 5 easy steps.






Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

PrepperForums said:


> Is it even possible for the Second Amendment to be repealed?
> 
> Are you concerned that this could be a possibility?
> 
> _"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_


As I learned yesterday, the DOJ can effectively nullify the Second Amendment.

I wanted to comment on the banning of bump stocks - novelty items that don't make a schit in the grand scheme of things. So, before posting my public comments, I proposed to DOJ officials a series of questions.

The DOJ, all on their own, can determine that semi-automatics are no longer safe or that they are not sporting arms, etc. and simply ban them and order that you turn them in.

That is why it was important for me to register my complaint against the banning of the bump stock. You see, those things were apparently approved for retail sales. So, somebody looked at the mechanical functionality and determined that the bump stock was within the parameters of the statute.

So, what changed? Some nutjob misused one? Let's outlaw big trucks too since some people use them improperly to kill lots of their fellow man. Regardless of what the late Mr. Paddock did, it did not change the mechanical functionality of the bump stock. And so, I looked at the principle as our forefathers looked at that pittance of a tax on tea... it was the principle. And this is the same principle.

BTW, if you'd like to comment in a way where Jeff Sessions has to listen to you, here is the link:

https://www.regulations.gov/

They don't need to repeal the Second Amendment. They just need Sessions to take your guns on the installment plan - take them incrementally.


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

C.L.Ripley said:


> The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
> 
> However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
> 
> Judge Alex Kozinski dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (9th circuit 2003)


Small reminder, tha 2A kicked in nicely when armed civilians recently stood up against a government agency. 
"The following day, a small line of flak-jacketed BLM rangers with assault rifles, backed up by similarly armed Park Service rangers, were strategically surrounded by the protesters, some pointing guns of their own. Local law enforcement officers were conspicuously absent until the standoff's final moments, when the sheriff helped negotiate a truce and the agency backed down." Source: https://www.hcn.org/articles/bureau-of-land-management-outgunned-bundy-malheur-blm-sheriff


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

It is apparent that ALL Politicians are LIARS. If you believe otherwise makes you a fool to the Millionth Degree. 

It is also apparent that collectively, our voices matter not one iota. To believe otherwise makes you a rabid dying racoon, blubbering and frothing at the mouth, insanely pleading for the rulers to hear your insignificant voice.

I believe it will happen one day. It may be 100 years from now, but my stance that it is 2 generations away (40-50 years). This will be a "RESET" of epic proportions. 

One side of me hopes I am still around to witness and be part of it, one side is glad that I will be sitting at the foot of God...


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

Urinal Cake said:


> <snip>Sure, the government may be forcing gun owners to make the transaction, but exchanging money for items IS capitalism, right? <snip>


The thought just occurred to me that when I read the word "items" I think "property" in which case the wording in the quote reminds me of Eminent Domain. Scary corollary.

And while I'm at it, thanks to @Kauboy for the reference to the "property requisition act of 1941".

After a little research I found the following:
10/15/07 Excerpts from NRA article which I've cannibalized since few people care for a long read these days. So if you're eyes haven't glazed over by now, here goes. source: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20071015/state-emergency-powers-vs-the-right

In the past, America has balanced emergency needs with respect for constitutional rights. Months before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress passed the Property Requisition Act of 1941, which allowed the President, as a last resort, to seize needed war materials "upon the payment of fair and just compensation."

Unfortunately, many states have "emergency powers" laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who've committed no crime--and who would then be defenseless against disorder.

Just two months after Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana legislature adopted a resolution declaring "the policy of the state of Louisiana to protect and uphold the citizens' right to keep and bear arms in their residences, businesses, and means of transport, and on their persons," condemning the seizure of firearms from New Orleans citizens, and announcing it planned to amend Louisiana's emergency powers law "to rectify the denial of these rights."

07/27/2006
Source: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20060727/s-2599hr-5013-disaster-recovery-pe
Passage of S. 2599/H.R. 5013 will make the prohibition of government confiscation of firearms during times of emergencies permanent and provides badly needed remedies for victims of confiscation should it ever happen in violation of the law.

Since then, 21 additional states have joined Louisiana by passing laws to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners by prohibiting the confiscation of firearms during a time of emergency.


----------



## otis (Mar 25, 2018)

could it? yes will it? I highly doubt it. to repeal would take a constitutional convention, 2/3 of the house, 2/3 the senate and 3/4 of the states


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

To hard to repeal. All they have to do is get 5 of 9 to give it a new meaning. And they have 4 now. Repeal would mean a long fight and getting the voters to go along with it. Planting one more liberal on the court not so hard to do.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

“Let us not go to slaughter like sheep! Jewish youth, do not trust the deceivers. . . . Hitler has invented a system for the destruction of all the Jews on Europe….It is true that we are weak and we have nobody to help us. But our only dignified answer to the enemy must be resistance! Brothers, it is better to die like free fighters than to live by the murderer’s grace. Resist until your last breath!” 
Humbling and dark.


I feel, like Slippy, that it is a generation or two away, BUT, it could happen sooner, as more of these open mouthed breathers start voting, and protesting louder and louder.
I am no soldier, no badass, no "OPERATOR", but I have a WILL TO LIVE FREE that I would die for, and I hope any one coming after me has their mind made up, cuase its gonna be a bitch.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Deebo said:


> "Let us not go to slaughter like sheep! Jewish youth, do not trust the deceivers. . . . Hitler has invented a system for the destruction of all the Jews on Europe&#8230;.It is true that we are weak and we have nobody to help us. But our only dignified answer to the enemy must be resistance! Brothers, it is better to die like free fighters than to live by the murderer's grace. Resist until your last breath!"
> Humbling and dark.
> 
> I feel, like Slippy, that it is a generation or two away, BUT, it could happen sooner, as more of these open mouthed breathers start voting, and protesting louder and louder.
> I am no soldier, no badass, no "OPERATOR", but I have a WILL TO LIVE FREE that I would die for, and I hope any one coming after me has their mind made up, cuase its gonna be a bitch.


Brains beat brawn nine times out of 10. You have experience, those programmed dolts coming out of the public fool system don't. Apply that experience and they won't be very successful.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

A buddy brought his 13-year-old daughter to work, tonight. She was obviously a smart kid, so during the conversation, the three of us were having, I asked if the 2nd Amendment could legally be repealed. Without missing a beat, she said, "No; it is a part of the Bill of Rights. No amendment in the Bill of Rights can be repealed."

To say that I was impressed is an understatement. There is hope for the future.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> A buddy brought his 13-year-old daughter to work, tonight. She was obviously a smart kid, so during the conversation, the three of us were having, I asked if the 2nd Amendment could legally be repealed. Without missing a beat, she said, "No; it is a part of the Bill of Rights. No amendment in the Bill of Rights can be repealed."
> 
> To say that I was impressed is an understatement. There is hope for the future.


Kuddos for her gusto, but demerits for a wrong answer.
A correct answer would be "no RIGHT in the Bill of Rights can be repealed"
Surely Uncle Denton shared his wise and sage knowledge with the wee fledgling.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Once again waste of time talking repeal . Still missing the point. All they need right now to change what the 2nd Amendment means is one vote. One more on the court to invent a new meaning. All it takes is 5 of 9 to say the 2nd does not apply to the individual and it is done no more right to own a firearm,anywhere of any kind. Think it can't happen go back look at how the court has over the years changed a words meaning. You are now as you have been for a long time teetering on one vote.
Roberts may well be the one that switches over.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Once again waste of time talking repeal . Still missing the point. All they need right now to change what the 2nd Amendment means is one vote. One more on the court to invent a new meaning. All it takes is 5 of 9 to say the 2nd does not apply to the individual and it is done no more right to own a firearm,anywhere of any kind. Think it can't happen go back look at how the court has over the years changed a words meaning. You are now as you have been for a long time teetering on one vote.
> Roberts may well be the one that switches over.


For many years I have felt like the lone voice on this, but the Heller decision was the the worst United States Supreme Court ruling in my life time. Let me point it out:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Like *most* rights??? So, some rights are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment? It makes you wonder what the Court was thinking.

If you study the earliest court decisions, from the state to the United States Supreme Court, you will find that the Right to keep and bear Arms *predated* the Constitution. The earliest decisions said that the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is an *unalienable* Right. That means it is unlimited. Courts have no jurisdiction over *unalienable* Rights.

Burying your guns in the back yard and lying to the authorities, claiming they were lost, stolen or ended up at the bottom of the lake is not a very good strategy IMO. You're going to end up with a boat anchor you cannot shoot and never be able to use in self defense. We need a really uncomfortable discussion about this topic. What the United States Supreme Court don't screw up, liberal states and hillbillies like Jeff Sessions using Federal Regulations will. The Second Amendment is two election cycles away from extinction.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

0rocky said:


> That why we have Common Core education; to do just that, make sure we do NOT have guards, teachers, conselors and the like in our schools. Spoke to middle and high school student recently and to my dismay, discovered WWII in the history books is 2 pages. You think they spend time learning about this country's formative years? Heck, Vietnam is about as relevant, significant as the Civil War.
> 
> Aaah yes, the dumbing down of America.


The sheep must be taught to be sheep.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Kuddos for her gusto, but demerits for a wrong answer.
> A correct answer would be "no RIGHT in the Bill of Rights can be repealed"
> Surely Uncle Denton shared his wise and sage knowledge with the wee fledgling.


You are correct, but I was too blown away by what this kid knew to think that clearly. 
Her father told me she also loves to read and write. Right now, she is on a classic novel binge, but I am still going to feed her some books.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I am of @Deebo 's mind. I've kicked some ass in my day and had mine kicked more then once, but my best fighting days are behind me. I am no Rambo or super ninja death machine. That said, I am almost 60 and I have had a full life with a lot of downs and some good ups. I have few regrets. So yea, come take my guns.



> "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
> ― Patrick Henry


I don't think it's going to be 2 generations. The time for men to make hard choices will come sooner then most expect.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> For many years I have felt like the lone voice on this, but the Heller decision was the the worst United States Supreme Court ruling in my life time. Let me point it out:
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> ...


 Here is the deal prior rulings and case mean nothing. In the past yes courts did relay on them. Not now we are in the age of make it up as you go. Judges rule based on how the feel about a case or topic. Even on clearly political agenda.
They don't even try to hide it. 
The Supreme court is free at any thing to change the Constitution. All they need is 5 votes. It has been done in the past and is being done more often now. Remember how Roberts ruled on Obama care he just changed the meaning a little. Why because he felt it would be good. Not because law supported it. He knew it did not, he felt it was good. All they need is one more justice to side with the 4 and they send out the word bring us a case. It will come quickly.
They will rule that it says a well regulated and applies to the US military and government only . Does not madder if it is supported by law, it becomes the law right then and there. It will mean that there is No right for the individual to have or own a fire arm. You can scream all you want it will not change the power the court has. 
So when some scream I aint voting for that xxxx. Or they toss a vote for some day dreamer in protest. Allowing one of the next conservatives on the court to leave to be replaced with a liberal. The 2nd is over.
We dodged a big bullet when the congress stopped Obama from appointing the justice. Had he done so there would be no right to own a fire up with in a year. 
With the Supreme Court it is So let it be written so let it be done. And that is that. You can not ague that nor deny it.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Prepared One said:


> I am of @Deebo 's mind. I've kicked some ass in my day and had mine kicked more then once, but my best fighting days are behind me. I am no Rambo or super ninja death machine. That said, I am almost 60 and I have had a full life with a lot of downs and some good ups. I have few regrets. So yea, come take my guns.
> 
> I don't think it's going to be 2 generations. The time for men to make hard choices will come sooner then most expect.


I'm older than you, but not ready to throw in the towel just yet. IF the American people stand up, I will step up to the plate, but I think the entire Constitution will be moot within the next two election cycles. Both the Ds as well as the Rs reject Liberty.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Here is the deal prior rulings and case mean nothing. In the past yes courts did relay on them. Not now we are in the age of make it up as you go. Judges rule based on how the feel about a case or topic. Even on clearly political agenda.
> They don't even try to hide it.
> The Supreme court is free at any thing to change the Constitution. All they need is 5 votes. It has been done in the past and is being done more often now. Remember how Roberts ruled on Obama care he just changed the meaning a little. Why because he felt it would be good. Not because law supported it. He knew it did not, he felt it was good. All they need is one more justice to side with the 4 and they send out the word bring us a case. It will come quickly.
> They will rule that it says a well regulated and applies to the US military and government only . Does not madder if it is supported by law, it becomes the law right then and there. It will mean that there is No right for the individual to have or own a fire arm. You can scream all you want it will not change the power the court has.
> ...


I think you have most of the equation right. Constitutionally speaking, the United States Supreme Court is empowered to judge the law. But, in 1803. in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court declared itself to be the final arbiter of what the law is. According to Wikipedia:

_The Marbury v. Madison decision expanded the power of the Supreme Court in general, by announcing that the 1789 law which gave the Court jurisdiction in this case was unconstitutional. Marbury thus lost his case, which the Court said he should have won, but, in explaining its inability to provide Marbury the remedy it said he deserved, the Court established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

"The Court," NOT we, the people declared itself to be the final arbiter of what the law is. And we know that there are two basic ways of interpreting the Constitution: Original Intent and Living Constitution. But, which is right? First, let me tell you what our problem is:

The United States Supreme Court can look at a set of facts today and apply the law and say the law means A. Tomorrow, they can look at the same, exact facts and decide that the Constitution means Z (the polar opposite of what they just ruled the day before.) That's your "_Living Constitution_." The critics (aka constitutionalists / originalists) say this is legislating from the bench. So, who is right? Let's ask the founding fathers:

"_The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that *all power is inherent in the people*; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed._" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.

"_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

I can do this all day long. The point is, the United States Supreme Court claimed a power that we, the people did NOT grant them in the Constitution. The founders warned against the situation we find ourselves in.

"_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

And how about this?

"_If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, *let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.* The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield._" - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

We have not held the Court to that standard. The United States Supreme Court has illegally promoted itself to be a greater branch of government than the legislative and executive branches of government. That is how they are screwing us over - and we were warned.

I want my country back.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

It is worst than that. 5 of 9 can come right out and say I don't care what the laws says. We don't like it and we will change the meaning of a few words and change the law. That is Not how it should work.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> It is worst than that. 5 of 9 can come right out and say I don't care what the laws says. We don't like it and we will change the meaning of a few words and change the law. That is Not how it should work.


They can do so in secret, but they'd never be so bold as to come out and blatantly say it.
Whatever security they employ would not be sufficient.

This concern is a why some have called for an amendment that allows for a final say that can overrule the court. It would require the same kind of supermajority of states to agree as it takes for an amendment itself. Basically, if SCOTUS hands down a ruling, states can file to veto/override their ruling by submitting a petition of sorts to all states. If a supermajority agrees, the ruling is nullified.

I want this.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> They can do so in secret, but they'd never be so bold as to come out and blatantly say it.
> Whatever security they employ would not be sufficient.
> 
> This concern is a why some have called for an amendment that allows for a final say that can overrule the court. It would require the same kind of supermajority of states to agree as it takes for an amendment itself. Basically, if SCOTUS hands down a ruling, states can file to veto/override their ruling by submitting a petition of sorts to all states. If a supermajority agrees, the ruling is nullified.
> ...


 The Congress can do that right now , all they have to do is pass a law and clearly state the intent. However soon as they do the court can ignore it and rules as the please all over again. We are living in a country that last lost the rule of law.
have you been listening to these judges , they don't hide it one bit anymore.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> The Congress can do that right now , all they have to do is pass a law and clearly state the intent. However soon as they do the court can ignore it and rules as the please all over again. We are living in a country that last lost the rule of law.
> have you been listening to these judges , they don't hide it one bit anymore.


No, they can't do that now. A law is insufficient, as a law cannot supersede the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that grants the final say to the Supreme Court.
It would require a constitutional amendment to set up a new "final say" method within the many states.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I'm older than you, but not ready to throw in the towel just yet. IF the American people stand up, I will step up to the plate, but I think the entire Constitution will be moot within the next two election cycles. Both the Ds as well as the Rs reject Liberty.


My Mom likes to joke I was born with a bottle of whiskey in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and looking for a fight. ( I think she was kidding about the cigarette :devil: ) I have been a fighter since I can remember and have no towel to throw, so I will keep swinging. I am not ready to let go of this country just yet.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> No, they can't do that now. A law is insufficient, as a law cannot supersede the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that grants the final say to the Supreme Court.
> It would require a constitutional amendment to set up a new "final say" method within the many states.


Unconstitutional laws are passed into existence all the time. Feds, states, counties/parishes political subdivisions all get into the act. Most end up getting overturned by the courts. But they still 'can do that'. And as long as said unconstitutional law is on the books, it can (and will be) enforced until someone with the financial means to challenge it.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Unconstitutional laws are passed into existence all the time. Feds, states, counties/parishes political subdivisions all get into the act. Most end up getting overturned by the courts. But they still 'can do that'. And as long as said unconstitutional law is on the books, it can (and will be) enforced until someone with the financial means to challenge it.


The bottom line of all bottom lines that most people fail to see - and I've been unable to articulate them is that the United States Supreme Court has unilaterally declared they are above the rest of humanity (and the other branches of government.) And, on gun control, the United States Supreme Court *WILL* uphold most any restrictions on guns (save of carrying them.) For example, the Court* WILL* uphold a ban on the ownership of an AR 15 while issuing a permit to carry a weapon. You can carry firearms, but you cannot own and / or possess an AR 15. They are banning firearms incrementally. Even the best lawyers cannot stop that practice. I do have an idea on how to stop the United States Supreme Court.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> No, they can't do that now. A law is insufficient, as a law cannot supersede the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that grants the final say to the Supreme Court.
> It would require a constitutional amendment to set up a new "final say" method within the many states.


You need to read the Heller decision very closely. Smitty901 is right.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> You need to read the Heller decision very closely. Smitty901 is right.


The Heller decision had nothing to do with my claim. Perhaps you read it so closely, you read something that wasn't there.
If you care to clarify what you mean, please do.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Unconstitutional laws are passed into existence all the time. Feds, states, counties/parishes political subdivisions all get into the act. Most end up getting overturned by the courts. But they still 'can do that'. And as long as said unconstitutional law is on the books, it can (and will be) enforced until someone with the financial means to challenge it.


What on earth are you talking about?
Nobody is talking about passing a law. I am talking about a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> What on earth are you talking about?
> Nobody is talking about passing a law. I am talking about a constitutional amendment.


Silly me.



Smitty901 said:


> The Congress can do that right now , all they have to do is *pass a law *and clearly state the intent. However soon as they do the court can ignore it and rules as the please all over again. We are living in a country that last lost the rule of law.
> have you been listening to these judges , they don't hide it one bit anymore.





Kauboy said:


> No, they can't do that now. A* law* is insufficient, as a *law* cannot supersede the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that grants the final say to the Supreme Court.
> It would require a constitutional amendment to set up a new "final say" method within the many states.


I guess the words '*law*' confused me. And '*pass a law*' just threw me for a loop.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Silly me.
> 
> I guess the words '*law*' confused me. And '*pass a law*' just threw me for a loop.


But you quoted me, when my entire argument was not based on passing a law at all. My argument was for an amendment. Smitty brought up the law issue, and I simply refuted it. Again, a law is not the way to solve an abusive SCOTUS. An amendment would.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> ..........and I simply refuted it................


I neither refuted nor agreed either. I simply made a factual statement.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I neither refuted nor agreed either. I simply made a factual statement.


Something was misunderstood here.

The claim was that 5 of 9 had the final say, and could ignore the law.
I stated that there was a solution that could remedy this, a constitutional amendment.
The response was that this(a solution) could be done now. Then passage of a law was given as the method.
I stated that it cannot be done now, as the passage of a law would not accomplish the goal.
You then added a comment about unconstitutional laws, and claimed "But they still 'can do that'."

The thing I stated they could not do was solve the abuse issue with law. I never claimed they couldn't pass a law.
There was no argument about whether they can pass a law.
The discussion is about whether the issue is resolvable via a law or not.
What statement did you make that claims they can solve the issue?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> The Heller decision had nothing to do with my claim. Perhaps you read it so closely, you read something that wasn't there.
> If you care to clarify what you mean, please do.


Here is the exact words from the ruling:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

That decision flies in the face of the *Original Intent AND the precedents* set by the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions.

The United States Supreme Court, in Heller, was claiming jurisdiction over *unalienable* Rights. Notice the Court said "_unlike some rights_." So, what are some "rights" that are protected? Protected by what? My position to you is that the Declaration of Independence laid the groundwork and the Bill of Rights limited the actions of government. But, the United States Supreme Court, through Heller, is allowing state and local jurisdictions to ban guns incrementally:

https://www.law.com/delawarelawweek...t-survived-challenge/?slreturn=20180301222726


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Here is the exact words from the ruling:
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> ...


Maybe I missed it, but when was that argued?
I'm not claiming that they aren't overstepping.
I'm proposing an amendment that moves that final decision to the states instead of 5 robed and fallible humans.
They are also not being so blatant as to say they are ignoring the law. They are disguising their intent with "interpretation". As I said, they can do so in secret, but would never be so bold as to state that they are ignoring the law and ruling in opposition to it.

EDIT: This is a side note, and open to whatever your opinion is... but do you outright disagree with the statement you quoted from Heller? Do you believe, for example, that an individual should be allowed to carry a vial of anthrax with them "in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"? This is just a thought experiment, no wrong answer, just curious of your reasoning. Personally, I would draw the line at any weapon with the potential for widespread geographic effect. I can't personally justify such weaponry as "defensive", even though I respect the original intent of the 2nd to imply resistance to a standing military under the rule of a tyrannical leader. I do also recognize the slippery slope that my limited definition would enable, and consider that a flaw of proper idea explanation. Were my vocabulary more robust, I'm sure I could articulate it more appropriately.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Maybe I missed it, but when was that argued?
> I'm not claiming that they aren't overstepping.
> I'm proposing an amendment that moves that final decision to the states instead of 5 robed and fallible humans.
> They are also not being so blatant as to say they are ignoring the law. They are disguising their intent with "interpretation". As I said, they can do so in secret, but would never be so bold as to state that they are ignoring the law and ruling in opposition to it.


I do not understand what you're asking. As the cite to Heller states in parenthesis, the Heller decision was decided in 2008. What I quoted you is from the *holding* of the case. When the United States Supreme Court hands down a decision, it has many parts. There are the facts of the case, there is "_dicta_" or the reasoning that was used to make the decision and then there is the *holding*. The holding is the law. Period.

As the link states, Delaware proposed gun bans (and, according to that article, it happened during the week prior to March 26, 2018 ) and those bans are consistent with the Heller decision. Maryland has already enacted bans that are consistent with the ruling in Heller... and bet your butt, more states *WILL* fall in line.

Again, if you go back to the* earliest* United States Supreme Court decisions, they are 180 degrees opposite of what the holding is in the Heller decision. It used to be that the Court acknowledged that the Right to keep and bear Arms predated the Constitution and the Right existed even *without *the Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court is legislating gun control from the bench. It's not their job, but they are doing it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I do not understand what you're asking. As the cite to Heller states in parenthesis, the Heller decision was decided in 2008. What I quoted you is from the *holding* of the case. When the United States Supreme Court hands down a decision, it has many parts. There are the facts of the case, there is "_dicta_" or the reasoning that was used to make the decision and then there is the *holding*. The holding is the law. Period.
> 
> As the link states, Delaware proposed gun bans (and, according to that article, it happened during the week prior to March 26, 2018 ) and those bans are consistent with the Heller decision. Maryland has already enacted bans that are consistent with the ruling in Heller... and bet your butt, more states *WILL* fall in line.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is an opposing view here. That might be what's throwing me.
I know the courts overstep. I took your comment to imply that I was somehow missing this reality.
I am not, and want to propose an amendment that removes their finality on all issues.

Perhaps you are intending to point out that the courts *are* being so bold, which I had stated they would not do.
This would be a matter of opinion I suppose. I don't think they are meeting the standard I hold for blatantly ignoring law.
Smitty stated, "_5 of 9 can come right out and say I don't care what the laws says_".
There has never been a judge in history to be so bold as to openly state that they "don't care what the law says".
They can rule in opposition to history, and claim an "interpretation", which is a clever way to hide their true intent.
But they are far too cunning to state they don't care what the law says.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I don't think there is an opposing view here. That might be what's throwing me.
> I know the courts overstep. I took your comment to imply that I was somehow missing this reality.
> I am not, and want to propose an amendment that removes their finality on all issues.
> 
> ...


Am I correct in thinking your solution is placing the right to keep and bear arms in the hands of the states?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Am I correct in thinking your solution is placing the right to keep and bear arms in the hands of the states?


That's not quite what I mean. This isn't about allowing any particular body to have control over rights.
The amendment proposed(not by me, but I'm restating it here) would allow for a SCOTUS decision to be overridden or nullified if 3/4ths of all state legislatures agree.
For example, if 5 judges decide to interpret the 2nd to mean something that is utter bullshit, there would still be a way to right the wrong that doesn't allow an incredibly small amount of people to decide the fate of the nation.
This would provide for one final way to avoid a violent revolution when our government runs amok.
The idea would be to put the final word back into the hands of the people via their state representatives.
In our system of "checks and balances", where each house chamber must cooperate, the president can veto their bills, and the legislature can override the veto, this would create an actual balance to the courts as well.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I don't think there is an opposing view here. That might be what's throwing me.
> I know the courts overstep. I took your comment to imply that I was somehow missing this reality.
> I am not, and want to propose an amendment that removes their finality on all issues.
> 
> ...


I don't think we are in disagreement over what is happening. I'm only explaining *HOW *it happens. I realize that this is a bit long winded, but stay with me.

The founding fathers intended for the legislature - that is the House of Representatives and the Senate to make the laws. It is the job of the courts to tell us what that law means. The way it's *supposed to* work is that when the United States Supreme Court decides what the law is, that is what the law is. *The only way it is supposed to change* - at least in theory, is when Congress gets together and changes the law.

In the legal world the Courts have two views about how the law works. One side says we have a "_Living Constitution_." Under this theory, the United States Supreme Court says that they can come in and change their own rulings. Let me give you an example:

The *first* time the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment and your Right to own a firearm, the Court ruled that you had a Right to keep and bear Arms. Furthermore, they said the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution was written. They said the Right to keep and bear Arms does not depend on the Constitution. It is an *unalienable* Right. That word *unalienable* means the government did not give us the Right and they cannot legally take it from us. I still believe that and it sounds like you do too. That means that people like you and I believe in *Original Intent*. This is what the founders believed too.

Then along come those Justices who believe in this "Living Constitution." Instead of letting lawmakers do their job, the Courts *reinterpret* their own rulings. The Courts once ruled that a man with a shotgun broke the law because the shotgun was not a firearm the militia would use (it wasn't a military arm.) Now they are allowing states to ban any gun they want.

Finally, it after many years and lots of decisions where the Court changed the *meaning of the law*, they now declare there is *NO unalienable Right to Life* because if they can outlaw any gun they want, then eventually all firearms are outlawed. The Court doesn't change the law all at once; they rely on the public sentiment to justify interpreting the law to let them ban one class of guns at a time. Soon you will be left with no way to defend your life. And that is what a LOT of judges want. I can tell you WHY that is later on.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I don't think we are in disagreement over what is happening. I'm only explaining *HOW *it happens. I realize that this is a bit long winded, but stay with me.
> 
> The founding fathers intended for the legislature - that is the House of Representatives and the Senate to make the laws. It is the job of the courts to tell us what that law means. The way it's *supposed to* work is that when the United States Supreme Court decides what the law is, that is what the law is. *The only way it is supposed to change* - at least in theory, is when Congress gets together and changes the law.
> 
> ...


I'm fully aware of the degradation at work.
My past posts on the site are a testament to my understanding of the Constitution, and our rights in general.
I can't count the number of times I've gone on this rant.

That just isn't the point I was making when I replied to this topic.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> That's not quite what I mean. This isn't about allowing any particular body to have control over rights.
> The amendment proposed(not by me, but I'm restating it here) would allow for a SCOTUS decision to be overridden or nullified if 3/4ths of all state legislatures agree.
> For example, if 5 judges decide to interpret the 2nd to mean something that is utter bullshit, there would still be a way to right the wrong that doesn't allow an incredibly small amount of people to decide the fate of the nation.
> This would provide for one final way to avoid a violent revolution when our government runs amok.
> ...


This ignores the fact that no part of the Bill of Rights is game for repeal. This concept was to take it out of the hands of both power-grubbing politicians as well as a wrong-thinking majority of the population. 
Rather than rewrite the intentions of the founding fathers, their intentions need to be taught reinforced.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> This ignores the fact that no part of the Bill of Rights is game for repeal. This concept was to take it out of the hands of both power-grubbing politicians as well as a wrong-thinking majority of the population.
> Rather than rewrite the intentions of the founding fathers, their intentions need to be taught reinforced.


I'm certainly not talking about opening rights up to repeal. However, just because I like to nitpick... nothing in the Constitution does anything to legally protect the first 10 amendments from being repealed. You and I know the rights involved are untouchable, but the words are just words, and the same document affords a method to change it.

I'll try one last time to be as clear as I can.
The courts have no check against them. There is no balance.
Anyone with an ideology opposing existing law or the constitution itself need only fill the court with people who feel the same way.
We see this encroachment advancing with each passing year.
The amendment proposed is intended to be a safeguard against this.

A system that provides for an unquestionable branch of government to decide the meaning of laws is not one that can be indefinitely sustained. We can teach whatever we like. We can scream at the top of our lungs about the atrocities committed by the courts. We can do anything we like within the law, and we'll still be faced with a decision to violate the law as written and upheld, or abide.
I want just one more roadblock in place. I want the opportunity to override those pompous robe-wearing pricks if they go off the reservation.
I want one more legal means to correct the problem before a line is crossed that can't be undone.
I agree that rights are not up for negotiation. However, here we are... What have we done over the past 50 years as they have been negotiated and compromised away with the court's approval? What recourse do we have? If SCOTUS decides, rarely do they revisit the topic. Just imagine if the Heller decision had decided the 2nd only applied to members of a militia, and that the National Guard stands as that militia? I hope we all realize just how close this nation came to experiencing a massive shift.
It could be that close again. It could go the other way.

Before the lead beings to fly, and the brass starts to pile high, shouldn't we have one more way to fix the error in a legally binding way?
I would expect we all know that any violent revolution would be considered an act of sedition. While that would certainly be warranted in a great number of cases, it would not be prudent to take that course of action if anything else could be done.


> "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


If we, in our new and modern wisdom, can add an additional balance to our system of government, shouldn't we do that?

Or are we just sitting ready to lock and load, and start cutting throats?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I'm fully aware of the degradation at work.
> My past posts on the site are a testament to my understanding of the Constitution, and our rights in general.
> I can't count the number of times I've gone on this rant.
> 
> That just isn't the point I was making when I replied to this topic.


In any event I share your frustration.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I'm certainly not talking about opening rights up to repeal. However, just because I like to nitpick... nothing in the Constitution does anything to legally protect the first 10 amendments from being repealed. You and I know the rights involved are untouchable, but the words are just words, and the same document affords a method to change it.
> 
> I'll try one last time to be as clear as I can.
> The courts have no check against them. There is no balance.
> ...


I know you aimed that at Denton, but I have an answer for you.

Of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said:

"_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man_."
--Thomas Jefferson

A charter is defined as:

_"1. A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.
2. A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the Crown.
3. A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a corporate body; a constitution: the city charter._"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/charter

Here are the most important things to know about that charter. The Declaration states:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._"

The Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not the only Rights that were bestowed upon you by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) but they *ARE* specifically articulated in that charter. So, the first time the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment on this issue, they *ruled*:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed_"

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

Okay, so the Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution. Where did it come from? It predated the Constitution. It's an extension to your Right to Life. If you have a Right to Life, you have the* Right*, the *Duty *and the *Obligation* to protect that Life. At issue here is that during the lives of the founders, this Right was *NEVER* in dispute. The United States Supreme Court ruled accordingly. We never needed Heller to tell us we have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms. The Court simply used that opportunity to illegally grant to government powers that they never had.

The Bill of Rights, specifically, the Second Amendment is not a grant from the government. It is a guarantee that they will not infringe on the the Rights. What good is an Amendment, another law or anything else going to accomplish if we don't force Congress to make good on the existing guarantee? We are trying to take the easy way out.

The only problem we have today is a lack of intestinal fortitude and people who don't want to use nonviolent legal and political avenue of redress to fully defeat the anti-gun lobby. For example, I have a combination of a prison reform bill and way to stop mass shooters (and a lot of other criminals) before they commit the act. But, our side doesn't want to discuss it. They want to accuse, argue and resist any strategic effort to fight the battle. And Congress isn't going to do it for you. If you can't make what exists today work, another law isn't going to change the bottom line either. My suggestion is that we discuss my proposals on how we can fix what we have and reduce gun violence *without* gun control.

It don't matter whether any of it becomes law or not. It would be the fact that every time the anti-gunners demand gun control, you invite them to the table;* YOU *offer up alternative solutions and let them create gridlock that prevents any gun legislation from being passed. If they happen to adopt my ideas, gun violence drops off dramatically and the pretext for gun control disappears. It's a win / win for us.


----------



## Toefoot (Jun 21, 2017)

I am so glad that grandma Kelsey stockpiled ammo, this is the soft target for 2A grabbers and IMO states are already looking to restrict them. You can have all the weapons in the world but you gotta feed 'em and at some point you may need a squad to your left and right.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I know you aimed that at Denton, but I have an answer for you.
> 
> Of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> ...


You seem to enjoy telling me things that I've already expressed before. Your post count doesn't suggest that you're "new" here, but I think you may have missed past discussions on this topic.

I've tried to be clear, but the message keeps getting muddied up. The proposed amendment is not intended to only be used as a defense to encroachment on the 2nd, but to any and all encroachment asserted from the bench.
I've yet to see anyone else support or refute the idea.

Let me ask a simple question. Should the courts have a legal check placed against them or should we start opening fire?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> You seem to enjoy telling me things that I've already expressed before. Your post count doesn't suggest that you're "new" here, but I think you may have missed past discussions on this topic.
> 
> I've tried to be clear, but the message keeps getting muddied up. The proposed amendment is not intended to only be used as a defense to encroachment on the 2nd, but to any and all encroachment asserted from the bench.
> I've yet to see anyone else support or refute the idea.
> ...


I'm not new here, but I was gone for quite some time, only having recently returned.

As to your question, I cannot pick between the two. Between the ballot box and the bullet box, there exists a wide array of options. You have found the real and I mean *REAL* issue in America. America's very worst problem is the United States Supreme Court.

You and I know the way it should work. The legislature passes a law and the courts rule on the meaning of the law. * IF *the people think the law is outdated or needs revising, they should not be using the courts to change the law with rulings -* ESPECIALLY* rulings that cancel out their previous rulings on the same issue / principle of law.

The legislature ratified the Bill of Rights. They left behind a lot of material that explained that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an individual Right and nobody can deprive us of that Right. The earliest courts - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court agreed. Constitutionally, at that point, the United States Supreme Court ought to have been out of the picture.

So, the basic issue is, in my mind, that the system is being run illegally. Another law, and I'm not telling you not to pursue it, has me questioning what laws are worth IF we, the people, don't exhaust all of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

And, if we do that,* WILL* the people then refuse to obey unconstitutional laws?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I'm not new here, but I was gone for quite some time, only having recently returned.
> 
> As to your question, I cannot pick between the two. Between the ballot box and the bullet box, there exists a wide array of options. You have found the real and I mean *REAL* issue in America. America's very worst problem is the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you're confusing a normal law with a change to the constitution. A law must be in line with the constitution. It can only enforce what is allowed by the constitution. If a change is made, directing that the courts are no longer the final stop on the road to legal justice, then no court can overrule this. It would not function like a normal law, where constitutionality gets to be decided. It would *be* the constitution, and thus unquestionable in a court of law. Since the constitution affords us a direct means to alter it, I believe this falls in line with exhausting all legal avenues.

I can't fathom why a constitutional check against the court is not an obvious remedy.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Perhaps you're confusing a normal law with a change to the constitution. A law must be in line with the constitution. It can only enforce what is allowed by the constitution. If a change is made, directing that the courts are no longer the final stop on the road to legal justice, then no court can overrule this. It would not function like a normal law, where constitutionality gets to be decided. It would *be* the constitution, and thus unquestionable in a court of law. Since the constitution affords us a direct means to alter it, I believe this falls in line with exhausting all legal avenues.
> 
> I can't fathom why a constitutional check against the court is not an obvious remedy.


Here's the thing. What @Resister is saying about the right to keep and bear arms is correct, as it is with the rest of our God-given rights. The founders knew this, and they hoped the future generations would also know this. If the future generations knew this they would make sure the government did not step over the line. Seems we let them down.

The 2nd Amendment was written concisely for the day, but maybe a little too concisely for this day. On the other hand, if the population rejects the God who endowed us with certain, unalienable rights, that only leaves the government as the highest authority. In the case of a democracy, it is in the hands of the citizens who are told what to think by the government and the ones who are pulling the strings behind the government.

Politicians are where they are because we put them there, and we ignore the unconstitutional laws they pass. Judges are to sit only during good behavior, but they are never removed when they ignore the constitution. Another amendment, another law, another layer of anything legal will do nothing to change the ultimate reason the legal protection of our rights are under fire.

Headed for work. Have a great day.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Here's the thing. What @Resister is saying about the right to keep and bear arms is correct, as it is with the rest of our God-given rights. The founders knew this, and they hoped the future generations would also know this. If the future generations knew this they would make sure the government did not step over the line. Seems we let them down.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment was written concisely for the day, but maybe a little too concisely for this day. On the other hand, if the population rejects the God who endowed us with certain, unalienable rights, that only leaves the government as the highest authority. In the case of a democracy, it is in the hands of the citizens who are told what to think by the government and the ones who are pulling the strings behind the government.
> 
> ...


I'm not claiming he isn't correct, nor have I said anything to oppose that view. You know me better than that, Denton.

The proposed amendment is not intended to *change* the reason. It is intended to ignore the reason, and block its effect entirely. Even the founders knew we could not hope to keep our system working indefinitely. They were well versed in history, and knew about the fall of Greece, and all of the things that lead to such a fall. The two primary things that allow it are apathy and contentment. Keeping the masses fat and happy is the best way to achieve underhanded goals.
The founders put in place AMENDMENTS to the constitution that the states demanded, because the states did not want the "reason" that some future politician held to be what decided the course of their lives. They wanted guarantees in writing that *reasons* would be ignored if they stood in opposition to the stated law. That's all this proposition seeks to do too.
The eloquent speeches and flawed logic of a few should not be sufficient to enslave the whole to the few's wishes. Ironclad guarantees should be in place to forbid it.

I keep asking what alternatives we have, but I'm only hearing "we need to educate". That's not a legally binding solution to the problem. It's also far from a timely one. As long as the people continue to enjoy their "bread and circuses", our message will fall on deaf ears.
I'm proposing something that could start now, and have a solution in place within the decade.
What solutions are you folks offering?

They banned ARs back in '94, and I didn't see any shots fired. Being a student of history, should I expect the next AWB to go any differently?
Let's put something in place that will give the PEOPLE the final voice. Shouldn't that at least be tried first? If not, who's pulling the trigger, and when?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I'm not claiming he isn't correct, nor have I said anything to oppose that view. You know me better than that, Denton.
> 
> The proposed amendment is not intended to *change* the reason. It is intended to ignore the reason, and block its effect entirely. Even the founders knew we could not hope to keep our system working indefinitely. They were well versed in history, and knew about the fall of Greece, and all of the things that lead to such a fall. The two primary things that allow it are apathy and contentment. Keeping the masses fat and happy is the best way to achieve underhanded goals.
> The founders put in place AMENDMENTS to the constitution that the states demanded, because the states did not want the "reason" that some future politician held to be what decided the course of their lives. They wanted guarantees in writing that *reasons* would be ignored if they stood in opposition to the stated law. That's all this proposition seeks to do too.
> ...


I told you that there were a lot of options between the ballot box and the bullet box. They are very detailed, but some of the things we are not doing would make a difference.

For instance, the right does not get involved. The right is on talk radio and on discussion boards. Meanwhile the left is busy at the county level, making sure children are being taught utter B.S. and turning out morons. When was the last time you read a textbook from the school nearest where you live? Did you go to your county commissioners and complain? Did you publicly comment before the textbooks / curriculum was being considered? Don't you folks tell me you don't have time. You're on these discussion boards - some of you every day.

In my case, I have written model legislation that would virtually end mass shootings (and a lot of other shootings and criminal activity) *without* gun control *AND *without any jeopardy to* any* Rights you have. *IF* it were introduced and had to be considered along side gun control bills, the left would concede defeat. They would concede defeat by dropping the subject of gun control.

Then again, we are represented by the Republicans - and they are two french fries short of a Happy Meal. For *IF* we introduced the bills I want it would stop gun control efforts but, the left would subtly encourage the Republicans to pass the line item veto. That way, when the Republicans pass a compromise bill under a Democrat, the Democrat can then veto what the Republicans wanted (i.e. lower taxes) and pass the part of the bill outlawing another class of firearms.

The first key is not trying to educate others until you've been trained in *political guerrilla warfare*. You have to be able to out-think, outwork, and out strategize the political opposition. And the fact is, *We don't*. Until we do that, there probably isn't a justification to use your weapons. The biggest point to remember here is that if you do nothing, then nothing will happen.

There are so many ways to deal with this that I wrote a book. Just don't have the money to publish it. It contains the strategies we used before there was an Internet to distract us and give incompetent people an equal voice with those that *WERE *making a difference.

*SOME *of the many strategies is to support one another and economically boycott your opposition. You discredit the opposition. You agree with them so that they will compromise with you, but you get more than you lose. You frustrate them. There is civil disobedience, passive resistance, and a dozen other strategies.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I told you that there were a lot of options between the ballot box and the bullet box. They are very detailed, but some of the things we are not doing would make a difference.
> 
> For instance, the right does not get involved. The right is on talk radio and on discussion boards. Meanwhile the left is busy at the county level, making sure children are being taught utter B.S. and turning out morons. When was the last time you read a textbook from the school nearest where you live? Did you go to your county commissioners and complain? Did you publicly comment before the textbooks / curriculum was being considered? Don't you folks tell me you don't have time. You're on these discussion boards - some of you every day.
> 
> ...


All of those efforts, while noble and worth doing, still don't fix the root of the problem I was responding to brought up by @Smitty901.
We can do all the necessary things to have a completely informed citizenry, and one swing vote on the bench can wipe it all away.
Hence, my proposal for the amendment.
Would you support such an amendment?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> All of those efforts, while noble and worth doing, still don't fix the root of the problem I was responding to brought up by @Smitty901.
> We can do all the necessary things to have a completely informed citizenry, and one swing vote on the bench can wipe it all away.
> Hence, my proposal for the amendment.
> Would you support such an amendment?


I'm not going to answer that question as long as you keep ignoring my posts. You can tell when people read your posts and when the read a paragraph and decide *TLDR*. I posted at least *TEN* proposals that are *NOT* about educating people in the post you just quoted and you ignored all of them. Furthermore, you've told me they won't work.

The reality is, they already* HAVE* worked. Failure to understand that is why you are losing on an incremental basis.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I'm not going to answer that question as long as you keep ignoring my posts. You can tell when people read your posts and when the read a paragraph and decide *TLDR*. I posted at least *TEN* proposals that are *NOT* about educating people in the post you just quoted and you ignored all of them. Furthermore, you've told me they won't work.
> 
> The reality is, they already* HAVE* worked. Failure to understand that is why you are losing on an incremental basis.


I read every word.
The problem is, you see a solution that doesn't solve the problem Smitty brought up. You just choose to ignore it.

I don't ignore posts when they remain on topic. The topic was legislation from the bench. You ignored it and went on a rant about things we've covered at length during your hiatus. I can tell you didn't read any of those posts, since you seem to pretend to be the only one here who actually understands what's going on.

None, and I repeat NONE, of your proposals resolve the 5vs4 decision by a court to ignore the laws of this country, which is the topic I originally replied to, and you eventually joined in on.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I am by no means a legal scholar, but in this day and age I don’t think any constitutional amendments have any chance of being considered much less passed and ratified. Both parties would block this proposal at every stage because neither party wants anything to change. They are both experts at manipulating the existing system and they don’t want any changes to rock the boat.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Chiefster23 said:


> I am by no means a legal scholar, but in this day and age I don't think any constitutional amendments have any chance of being considered much less passed and ratified. Both parties would block this proposal at every stage because neither party wants anything to change. They are both experts at manipulating the existing system and they don't want any changes to rock the boat.


You certainly understand of how the system* REALLY* works. As such, neither side will support much less introduce a constitutional Amendment.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I read every word.
> The problem is, you see a solution that doesn't solve the problem Smitty brought up. You just choose to ignore it.
> 
> I don't ignore posts when they remain on topic. The topic was legislation from the bench. You ignored it and went on a rant about things we've covered at length during your hiatus. I can tell you didn't read any of those posts, since you seem to pretend to be the only one here who actually understands what's going on.
> ...


Let's get on a level playing field here. During my absence, it is not valid what you said. *NOBODY *- be it newbies or people who have to leave the board to take care of business are going to read every thread on this board. The better thing for you do is to pick a topic and keep it up to date and relevant. That way, there are not hundreds of threads covering the same subject over and over. * AND *your message is there, on that thread, where people have to consider it.

When I tell people the truth - what they *NEED TO KNOW*, I'm being accused of being an asshole; of being condescending, etc. I try to feed you milk before meat. But, you're not going to settle for that. So, let's do this once again:

As Chiefster23 articulated, *neither* side is going to contemplate a constitutional amendment. That is all pie in the sky that is unobtainable. Period. I lived through a period where we had a constitutional amendment on the table that would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, abolish the IRS and give the average American a pay raise of 25 or more percent. Rallies were held and thousands attended; books were written and made it to the top of the New York Times Bestseller List; it was the most researched proposed amendment in American history. Yet it was the right, *NOT* the left that got that idea silenced... Oh, but the left conned the right into supporting legislation that made the effort to get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment moot.

The right does not understand the political system. If you had understood it, you would not make a false allegation as you did. Let us examine the facts:

1) If you drop a rock into a still pond, it makes many ripples. In politics, when you charge off making a major change, it has the same effect. *No* legislation, none of it is a stand alone bill. How about this: I do a separate posting on this thread, just for you so you get the idea? Right now, let us just say that every idea we put on the table has unintended consequences

2) You claim that I did not respond to Smitty901. Of course I did. Realizing that passing a constitutional amendment is a damn near impossible feat AND me stupidly thinking this thread was about halting the repeal of the Second Amendment, I listed a few ways to defeat the left

3) When you realize that the Ds nor the Rs are not going to get on board, you have to employ strategies that get you where you're going via political guerrilla warfare and strategies that end up having the left do your work for you

4) The reality is, the way you win this battle over-all is to keep the United States Supreme Court *out* of the fight until your strategy can be employed so that the other side gets the United States Supreme Court to make a decision YOU benefit from.

I'm going to do a post for you on this thread and explain this.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Whats for lunch?:vs_bulb:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

*FOR KAUBOY*

By way of analogy (and if you reject the idea of analogies, you will never understand the law) I want to give you a freebie lesson in political reality.

Some years back a friend asked me to donate some legal research time and a few dollars to fight a provision in the Brady Bill. The man was Sheriff Richard Mack. The issue was that Mack refused to use his office to enforce the background checks mandated by the Brady Bill. If you're like me, you're thinking the guy's a sheriff. He should have an inkling of the law.

Anyway, we fought this case and it ultimately ended up in the United States Supreme Court. The court consolidated many challenges into one case and Sheriff Mack's case was rolled into that. Ultimately the case was won. In their ruling, this is what the United States Supreme Court *ruled*:

"T_he Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51's argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself."[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends...

...The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive-to insure both vigor and accountability-is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that *the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional_ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

And so, the federal government cannot command state officials. We won. Right? Some of you didn't.

When California decided to become a Sanctuary State, California cited that very precedent to say that their state and local officials did not have to take orders from the feds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.163e0520b9f1

So, while the anti-immigrant lobby stomps their feet and wails about forcing the state of California to make them to enforce federal statutory law, they don't have to. And it was a decision paid for by the gun lobby that made it that way. These are called *unintended consequences*.

Passing more laws that get ignored serves no real purpose and what we do get passed must not be able to come back and bite you in the arse. It's a point you can't teach to the anti-immigrant lobby, but one I thought the pro-gun lobby might accept.

If the objective is to stop the repeal of the Second Amendment, then political guerrilla warfare must be employed. The simplest way to stop the anti-gunners today is to offer legislation that would dramatically alter the incidences of gun violence with *preventative measures*, which the left will predictably reject. Since we've compromised with them every single time at the federal level, you might say they owe us one. Now, suppose that you* DID* get my proposals passed and it *DID* the job I promised. There is *NO* legitimate need to beg for gun control.

If the idea is never seriously considered, it will still keep the left from introducing gun control. They don't want to negotiate any compromises - and the right has never offered alternatives to gun control.

At the end of the say, you never want the United States Supreme Court to rule. The high Court is made up of ABA approved lawyers. The ABA is the most communistic body in the United States - and over-all they are left of Putin.

I'm answering your questions. You just aren't wanting to hear the truth.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Long winded....

Tacos for lunch.


Sic em Ron!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'm getting sick of your tone. You're only here to make yourself sound important, as if you're the only one with answers. 
Your walls of text confirm this. I won't be spoken down to by someone who thinks they control the discussion. You need to get a serious grip on reality, and understand that your point of view is not gospel.

Feed me milk... what a pompous prick.

I'm done.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> I'm getting sick of your tone. You're only here to make yourself sound important, as if you're the only one with answers.
> Your walls of text confirm this. I won't be spoken down to by someone who thinks they control the discussion. You need to get a serious grip on reality, and understand that your point of view is not gospel.
> 
> Feed me milk... what a pompous prick.
> ...


Thank you I expected no less. The endless Wall of text was really starting to affect my eyes.

After each first sentence it all became...

Blah blah blah blah.

Wasn't there a resistor character from many years ago on here that got a perma ban here and at OTP? The guy was a real douche.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

@The Resister - I agree with a lot of what you are saying, here. Not all, and feel the same with what @Kauboy is saying. 
Here's where you are erring in the world of the internet, and probably in the real world:
People have many things to do during the say. They slice out a part of their limited time to read message boards. During that time, they have limited time to spend on individual threads. You are writing as if they are here simply to be educated by your book-sized posting. This makes you come across as a way you don't intend, I am certain.
You have stated your case, and you have stated your case and then, you've restated your case. You've clearly stated your case. Now, allow the mind to use what you've said, integrate it into other things in the mind and reorient attitudes. It might take weeks or months, but that is the way the brain works, shy of an epiphany.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Maybe I should have been quicker to offer the advice.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Denton said:


> Maybe I should have been quicker to offer the advice.


Yeah ya slacker its all your fault!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

hawgrider said:


> Yeah ya slacker its all your fault!


Yup. I need to be quicker at caffeinating.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> @The Resister - I agree with a lot of what you are saying, here. Not all, and feel the same with what @Kauboy is saying.
> Here's where you are erring in the world of the internet, and probably in the real world:
> People have many things to do during the say. They slice out a part of their limited time to read message boards. During that time, they have limited time to spend on individual threads. You are writing as if they are here simply to be educated by your book-sized posting. This makes you come across as a way you don't intend, I am certain.
> You have stated your case, and you have stated your case and then, you've restated your case. You've clearly stated your case. Now, allow the mind to use what you've said, integrate it into other things in the mind and reorient attitudes. It might take weeks or months, but that is the way the brain works, shy of an epiphany.


That wasn't very clear, but there are many different points within each post that I make, unless someone is rehashing the same point - and that means we have to rehash the same answer, just presented differently so they might understand it.

My average post, while it looks long to you, is less than half the size of most of the newspaper stories I read. And sometimes you cannot inform people with the bumper sticker slogan response. Those who can afford to be here all day probably have the time to read the posts.

You've pretty much summed half the problem: We don't want to invest the time to actually learn what the left knows. That is why they win.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

He means don't publish your book here. Break it down smaller for us less intelligent types.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> That wasn't very clear, but there are many different points within each post that I make, unless someone is rehashing the same point - and that means we have to rehash the same answer, just presented differently so they might understand it.
> 
> My average post, while it looks long to you, is less than half the size of most of the newspaper stories I read. And sometimes you cannot inform people with the bumper sticker slogan response. Those who can afford to be here all day probably have the time to read the posts.
> 
> You've pretty much summed half the problem: We don't want to invest the time to actually learn what the left knows. That is why they win.


You do understand 90% of what you read in a news paper is BS right. written to conform to and push a selected agenda. Devoid of much truth or real facts. Kind of like public schools now.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> You do understand 90% of what you read in a news paper is BS right. written to conform to and push a selected agenda. Devoid of much truth or real facts. Kind of like public schools now.


I read more than biased MSM news.

I've spent the last three decades of my life refuting what the MSM says. The problem is, most of the people on the right bitch and complain that my posts are too long. *THAT*, sir, is where the left has us. They read, study, and strategize. Our people are too used to having everything reduced to a bumper sticker slogan for a strategy and we, consequently, lose more ground than we gain.

Nobody can give you even the bare bones (a mere synopsis) of any issue in twelve paragraphs or less.

If you ever have to go to court, there is a formula for winning:

Study every aspect of the opposition's strategy so that you can argue his case better than he can. If you can do that and still know you can over-come his points, you'll probably win. In our own case, all we see are what we believe to be the strengths and *never admit* to the weaknesses. We don't want to know what they are and if you point them out, you work for the liberals. It's unbelievable.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Coastie dad said:


> He means don't publish your book here. Break it down smaller for us less intelligent types.


Twelve paragraphs take under three minutes to read. How many people have an attention span under three minutes?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Isn't it kind of pointless for us to keep asking what can be done if even the basics are *TLDR*?

The left has a strategy. Here it is, from a former slave:

"_Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will_." Frederic Douglass

What is* YOUR* strategy?


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

My strategy is to not overuse an acronym. Wish other people would adopt that same strategy.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> That wasn't very clear, but there are many different points within each post that I make, unless someone is rehashing the same point - and that means we have to rehash the same answer, just presented differently so they might understand it.
> 
> My average post, while it looks long to you, is less than half the size of most of the newspaper stories I read. And sometimes you cannot inform people with the bumper sticker slogan response. Those who can afford to be here all day probably have the time to read the posts.
> 
> You've pretty much summed half the problem: We don't want to invest the time to actually learn what the left knows. That is why they win.


You know what? I've read this post and the ones following, and I'm going to tell you what is on my mind.

You are a pompous ass. I mean that in a totally good way, you know? I mean, think about it. Not just anyone can come and tell people he doesn't even know they are all a bunch of short attention span dimwits.

Me? I'm sure I'm not nearly as smart as you are. I only spent years diving into everything about the constitution and what it took to craft it. I went a little bit past just that when I became curious as to why we no longer seemed to be governed by that document. I'd be willing to bet I am the only non-lawyer in town who has books like Black's Law Dictionary or the USC - annoted, of course. All totaled, well, I'm not sure how many thousands of dollars. After all, West Publishing is proud of all the publications they offer, you know what I mean? I'm sure you do. You are way smarter than I am.

Still, here is something you need to understand. We don't come here to sit in long-winded lectures made by pompous asses who think we are so stupid all we can do is speak in bumper sticker slogans. See, it isn't that we are stupid. We do this in between other things we do. You might be blown away to learn that we actually read on our own time! Yes, we read books and stuff. We, too, read news sites that aren't mainstream. Heck, we even figured out that the internet thingie crosses national borders and lets us read news from other countries! Ain't that cool for a bunch of knuckle-dragging rubes?
Thought that'd make you proud of us.

No, we don't come here to be lectured endlessly by someone who is certain he holds all the truth and knowledge and believes if he continues to beat us with his facts and logic we will stop seeing things our way and see everything _your_ way.

Now, if you'd like to drop the pompous ass thing, learn how to have casual conversations about politics and maybe steer us toward some really cool prepper conversations, you'll have a really good time, here. To be honest, however, I don't think we are really looking for someone to lecture us until we are willing to regurgitate the desired answers for the professor's example.

I was hoping you'd just take my politely offered advice, but you are too obtuse. Because of it, I had to spell it out for you.

To summarize, we are not stupid, we just don't like people lecturing us to no end. We aren't here for that. My suggestion? Write a book. Maybe some of us will even buy it to read at our leisure. See, it's easier to read a book for in depth learning than it is on message boards. Figured you'd be smart enough to understand that.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Before the maple leaf took over I'd have said no way but,... who knows.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Denton said:


> I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


I'll put a Jackson on no you won't .


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

Denton said:


> I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


That would be a negative 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

Ooh...ooh...can I be a mod for, say, 24 hours?


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

Denton said:


> I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


Hope not


----------



## admin (Apr 28, 2016)

Denton said:


> I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


Are you trying to tempt me again? :tango_face_wink:


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Cricket said:


> Are you trying to tempt me again? :tango_face_wink:


Double dog dare ya!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Cricket said:


> Are you trying to tempt me again? :tango_face_wink:


Here's the thing. I had just got home from work. I poured a cup of tea and cranked up the computer when I started feeling odd as if there was another presence in the room. The room suddenly turned ice-cold. I heard Slippy's voice say, "I'm taking over, now." Next thing I know, I am waking up to the alarm clock. I think he's been studying astral projection! :glasses:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> You know what? I've read this post and the ones following, and I'm going to tell you what is on my mind.
> 
> You are a pompous ass. I mean that in a totally good way, you know? I mean, think about it. Not just anyone can come and tell people he doesn't even know they are all a bunch of short attention span dimwits.
> 
> ...


You seem to want a one on one with me and I've noticed that with some people, they are able to circumvent the rules. For example, anyone that says I called you stupid is a pathological liar. So, you can tell them that for me.

Now, suppose that I did write a book. Possibly, the best way to get feedback and refine certain points is to *discuss* them. And this *IS* a discussion board, is it not? And sharing with others what I know (what I spent many years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars learning) should go to waste because a few people are offended by a dozen paragraphs. So, Einstein, tell me this: How many people are on this board? Of those how many are bitching about my posts?

There isn't any freaking body _"lecturing_" you about a damn thing. Just as others are here teaching you about their expertise in certain areas, I'm doing the same. And what I have to say is just as relevant as the guy that would teach you the importance of barrel twist and bullet weight dynamics. AND it is *IS* a valid prepper skill. To your attempts to browbeat me, I'd tell you to grow the Hell up. Unless someone is here denigrating you or belittling you at a personal level, you shouldn't take it so personal.... unless you figure the shoe fits and feel intimidated by it.

The wrong political / legal strategies *will *backfire on you. And, if the truth be known, when the right looks back over the last fifteen years, it is *undeniably* true that had they listened to me they would not have lost every single, solitary legal and political battle they entered save of the wall (and it isn't completed yet.) Once you get the military involved in enforcing domestic laws, I'll sure be amused at how you spin that to make it look like a "_win_" for preppers.

I think what you expect is for people to come onto this board and keep asking / answering the same questions with the same rhetorical answers *THAT DON'T WORK, HAVE NEVER WORKED AND NEVER WILL WORK*. It is the right that introduced legislation that cost us* TRILLIONS* in tax dollars, eviscerated the Fourth Amendment, gave us the so - called "_Patriot Act,_" along with the National ID / REAL ID Act, an end to the concept of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty. I could list their achievements in one posting, but it would be way the Hell too long for you to read in one thread (not one post, but one entire thread.) *ALL* of it has set us back a hundred years - which is a notable achievement since the left couldn't get it done in 200 years... not bad for a fifteen year battle by the right.

Now, nobody has said you were stupid, but you don't want to match resumes with me. Legal education - check. Courtroom experience - Check. Individual wins in court - Check. Research on cases that were won in the United States Supreme Court - Check. Called as an expert witness - Check. Served as a jury foreman - Check. Subscriptions to Lexis and Westlaw - Check. Let's not include the fact that I was once a Justice of the Peace, paid lobbyist for gun rights, and have managed successful political campaigns. We won't talk about the times I warned people on the right that their strategies would land them in prison - and it did... and Esquire reported that I *DID* warn those people and they chose to ignore me. BTW, in the 1980s my hometown newspaper once ran an editorial and the man who wrote it stated I was "_probably the most quoted man in Georgia_."

So, I'm not your garden variety idiot that needs a soapbox. What it boils down to Denton is that my critics can't accept the truth. So, rather than to have *discussions*, they prefer pissing matches. You could easily ignore my posts. But, you'd rather they become personal. If it makes you feel good, go for it. And if there is a limit as to how many paragraphs I can post, point me to it. And if criticizing the right wing , as a whole, criticizes each individual, then you are doomed to defeat. So, I've answered you in as many paragraphs as you addressed me in.

I only have one additional thing - and only so I don't have to respond to another of your posts. If you're worried about your position on the board, then deep inside, you realize that the treatment you're dishing out toward me is something a true leader would never do. It doesn't mean you can't bounce back; it simply acknowledges that the amount of intimidation I get from trying to keep people from stumbling isn't justifiable... not even in your own heart.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I didn't figure you'd learn a thing. Pompous professors rarely do. I really didn't expect you to look back at your posts to see how you condescendingly talked down to the community. I didn't expect you to take a moment and contemplate your long-winded writing style. I didn't expect you to take into consideration how board talk flowed and how you would do well to try and go with that flow if you wanted to get points across to us. I was right on each point, it seems I was right in thinking that way, but I figured I would charge you with knowledge. Charge you with knowledge; you should be familiar with that phrase, right?
Be too smart to learn from others. Carry on.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Unless one of you has something substantive to say about my posts on this thread, I figure I've said what needed to be said.

You can look toward success or sink your own ship. A government that knows what you're doing 24 / 7 / 365; that knows every item you purchased; knows who you friends are... and can control you from the womb to the tomb is one that makes prepping a hobby that could land you in jail (anti-hoarding laws, conspiracy to commit, etc.) There is a blueprint that can take you success, but only if you employ it. You can heed this warning. Unless you commit to the change it takes, start looking at your firearms one last time because after Trump, you will all stand in line to turn them in.

Most of you realize that if we fight this hard among ourselves, none of you would want to share a foxhole with me - and one day your very life could depend on it. So, if we cannot resolve to defend each other's Rights on a discussion board, we're screwed. Godspeed.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> I didn't figure you'd learn a thing. Pompous professors rarely do. I really didn't expect you to look back at your posts to see how you condescendingly talked down to the community. I didn't expect you to take a moment and contemplate your long-winded writing style. I didn't expect you to take into consideration how board talk flowed and how you would do well to try and go with that flow if you wanted to get points across to us. I was right on each point, it seems I was right in thinking that way, but I figured I would charge you with knowledge. Charge you with knowledge; you should be familiar with that phrase, right?
> Be too smart to learn from others. Carry on.


Projecting isn't fitting for a person of your stature. BTW, while you're teaching me things, just thought I'd let you know you shouldn't have invested $1700 for a copy of the USC when you can subscribe to services and read it for a small fee OR go to your county courthouse and read it for free. But, you don't need to listen to me. You are the one who has all the truth.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> Projecting isn't fitting for a person of your stature. BTW, while you're teaching me things, just thought I'd let you know you shouldn't have invested $1700 for a copy of the USC when you can subscribe to services and read it for a small fee OR go to your county courthouse and read it for free. But, you don't need to listen to me. You are the one who has all the truth.


I didn't JUST purchase the USCA. Why did you think that? As far as going to the courthouse or the library to read, they seem to frown on people underlining and highlighting. It's as if they allow others to use the books or something. Same thing with online subscriptions. Highlighting my screen gets confusing. Besides, I like books and I like studying in my home where the coffee pot is.
I have no noticeable stature, I have taught you nothing (obviously) and I don't pretend to have all the truth. Projecting? Yeah, whatever you say. I'm just trying to get you to understand how to communicate on the board, and how members have livs outsid of the board and don't want to take time to read volumes at a time.
Now, you can ignore what I am trying to get you to understand or don't. It's up to you. You are the one who is trying to share information, and I am simply trying to get you to understand how to best do it on the board.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Denton said:


> I didn't figure you'd learn a thing. Pompous professors rarely do. I really didn't expect you to look back at your posts to see how you condescendingly talked down to the community. I didn't expect you to take a moment and contemplate your long-winded writing style. I didn't expect you to take into consideration how board talk flowed and how you would do well to try and go with that flow if you wanted to get points across to us. I was right on each point, it seems I was right in thinking that way, but I figured I would charge you with knowledge. Charge you with knowledge; you should be familiar with that phrase, right?
> Be too smart to learn from others. Carry on.


Of course you knew he would resist. After all he is "The Resister"


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> I didn't JUST purchase the USCA. Why did you think that? As far as going to the courthouse or the library to read, they seem to frown on people underlining and highlighting. It's as if they allow others to use the books or something. Same thing with online subscriptions. Highlighting my screen gets confusing. Besides, I like books and I like studying in my home where the coffee pot is.
> I have no noticeable stature, I have taught you nothing (obviously) and I don't pretend to have all the truth. Projecting? Yeah, whatever you say. I'm just trying to get you to understand how to communicate on the board, and how members have livs outsid of the board and don't want to take time to read volumes at a time.
> Now, you can ignore what I am trying to get you to understand or don't. It's up to you. You are the one who is trying to share information, and I am simply trying to get you to understand how to best do it on the board.


In post # 107 (or thereabouts) I did a post quote of what you said. Here are the words:

"_I am the only non-lawyer in town who has books like Black's Law Dictionary or the USC - annoted, of course_..."

The actual word is annotated, BTW.

You seem to be more into public ridicule and thinking that you have a monopoly on the facts. My posts are for those who are interested and can take the time to read for two minutes -* AND* if they have to use a few more minutes verifying the info with the links provided.

I'm not talking down to anybody and you know it. That's YOUR major problem. In another thread here, several people agreed, including YOU with my approach:

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/104298-nice-2.html See post #16 and then read the number 4 on that list. You liked it, but you damn sure didn't practice it on this thread.

So, are we going to continue this whizzing contest or do you want to continue discussing the demise of the Second Amendment?

Just click on the words _Be Nice_ (above) if you are as color blind as I am.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> Of course you knew he would resist. After all he is "The Resister"


So, are we now going to have a whizzing contest with multiple insults *OR* do you want to lament the demise of the Second Amendment?

If we're going to exchange insults, this is going to get interesting. But, good one.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

The Resister said:


> So, are we now going to have a whizzing contest with multiple insults *OR* do you want to lament the demise of the Second Amendment?
> 
> If we're going to exchange insults, this is going to get interesting. But, good one.


The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere so I'm just here for the whiskey and smoked fish.


----------



## Grinch2 (Sep 12, 2016)

Am I concerned about the 2nd being repealed? No, would law enforcement try to go against towns full of armed people? No, would the military be resorted to doing it? For those who are set in their ways yes, and are they going to resort to lethal measures for confiscation? Possibly, but when resistance comes are they really going to spend thousands in ordinance to stop a handful of " radicals " maybe. But how many are they really going to kill under the dems decide its an uphill battle? Personally I think you would see a second civil war, one the dems don't want, because one side has 8 trillion+ rounds, the other doesn't know which bathroom to use. There'd be chaos and madness on a level never before seen. 

Besides they can go screaming about banning this or banning that all they want, there's guys out there with dremels cleaning numbers off as we speak putting their numberless items inside sealed containers with ammo just waiting. Who's to say who has what, I mean after all look at the firepower some of these illegal alien gang members have, it's amazing what goes unnoticed anymore.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere so I'm just here for the whiskey and smoked fish.


On Friday, I spent a couple of hours out of my day speaking with the dipwads at Sen. David Perdue's office and some woman that was a total bitch at the DOJ. The woman at the DOJ was so ignorant she did not know that there was website you go to in order make public comment about proposed Federal Regulations. And she works under Jeff Sessions! She wanted to debate the point, so I'm getting back to her. I e-mailed Perdue about his staff's incompetence. Those people don't even understand the process while getting paid to know it.

Anyway, my issue was simply this: Jeff Sessions is going to ban bump stocks - not a big deal, but I'm like those guys dumping tea over a pittance of a tax. The principle was at stake. When bump stocks first came out, the bump stock met the mechanical functionality required in the statute and does *NOT* turn a firearm into a machine gun. Now, Sessions is going to unilaterally ban them *AND* require that you turn in your existing bump stock, destroy it, or render it permanently inoperable. Soooo... What in the Hell happened to the prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution?

In my lifetime, the government has gotten rid of semi-auto imports (Uzi, AK, FN/FAL, shotguns... even the Norinco .45.) They got rid of your ability to legally convert your weapon to fully auto. There is an import ban on the M1 Garand and M1 carbines.... legally sold by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Okay, I won't be long winded. You get the drift. So, what stops Jeff Sessions or the next tyrant that occupies that office from outlawing the AR 15 (upon which most modern weapons are based on?) After little conversation with the DOJ and people working in Senator Perdue and Johnny Isakson's office, the real answer is - The AG can outlaw whatever weapon floats his boat and the Heller decision will be used as precedent to uphold the ban.

Given that, the Second Amendment is about as worthless as Confederate dollar bills in China.

regulations.gov


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Grinch2 said:


> Am I concerned about the 2nd being repealed? No, would law enforcement try to go against towns full of armed people? No, would the military be resorted to doing it? For those who are set in their ways yes, and are they going to resort to lethal measures for confiscation? Possibly, but when resistance comes are they really going to spend thousands in ordinance to stop a handful of " radicals " maybe. But how many are they really going to kill under the dems decide its an uphill battle? Personally I think you would see a second civil war, one the dems don't want, because one side has 8 trillion+ rounds, the other doesn't know which bathroom to use. There'd be chaos and madness on a level never before seen.
> 
> Besides they can go screaming about banning this or banning that all they want, there's guys out there with dremels cleaning numbers off as we speak putting their numberless items inside sealed containers with ammo just waiting. Who's to say who has what, I mean after all look at the firepower some of these illegal alien gang members have, it's amazing what goes unnoticed anymore.


So you file off the numbers of your thousand dollar souped up AR. You bury it. You come home from work to find three thugs raping your wife and ransacking your house. Of what use is your firearm now? And, even if you could get to it, it would be a felony to defend yourself with an illegal firearm.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> On Friday, I spent a couple of hours out of my day speaking with the dipwads at Sen. David Perdue's office and some woman that was a total bitch at the DOJ. The woman at the DOJ was so ignorant she did not know that there was website you go to in order make public comment about proposed Federal Regulations. And she works under Jeff Sessions! She wanted to debate the point, so I'm getting back to her. I e-mailed Perdue about his staff's incompetence. Those people don't even understand the process while getting paid to know it.
> 
> Anyway, my issue was simply this: Jeff Sessions is going to ban bump stocks - not a big deal, but I'm like those guys dumping tea over a pittance of a tax. The principle was at stake. When bump stocks first came out, the bump stock met the mechanical functionality required in the statute and does *NOT* turn a firearm into a machine gun. Now, Sessions is going to unilaterally ban them *AND* require that you turn in your existing bump stock, destroy it, or render it permanently inoperable. Soooo... What in the Hell happened to the prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution?
> 
> ...


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you........The Resister!

About time!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you........The Resister!
> 
> About time!


I kept scrolling, thinking I'd surely missed the next six paragraphs.
Finally a post that doesn't wear out the mouse wheel.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)




----------



## Grinch2 (Sep 12, 2016)

The Resister said:


> So you file off the numbers of your thousand dollar souped up AR. You bury it. You come home from work to find three thugs raping your wife and ransacking your house. Of what use is your firearm now? And, even if you could get to it, it would be a felony to defend yourself with an illegal firearm.


If I was in this situation first off I'd like to say hats off to whoever got past my dogs, cause if they get past my Rottweiler, Australian Cattle Dog and Boerboel, ha, well then I'm not sure my AR would do the job. And you might have an excuse like ' oh they threw a steak ' a stranger wanting to hurt my fiance those dogs will shred them, I'd bet my life on that.

Secondly I never said we'd bury all of our AR's, maybe our " souped up " ones sure, not all of mine are " souped up ".

Now lets just say for example I didn't have my dogs; What about shotguns and pistols? I'd be willing to say my Stevens 320 and Glock 20 would be more than capable of handling whatever situation had risen. Not to mention my fiance carries. Because if I can't handle things with six rounds of 3 inch #4 buck and 46 rounds of 180 JHP.... I'm either going to throw in the towel or I'll go out to get my Stag which is just about stock, and since I hate the thought of running out those four Surefire 100 round box mags under the seat sway the odds in my favor.

I think you're truthfully missing the point of my statement, you take the several paycheck guns ( your FNH's, Noveske's, Armalite's- thing of that nature ) , the ones the dems are really after and do that, then if they're really needed then you get them. When you bury things like that you don't make them easily accessible for pinch situations.

Moderation is key


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)




----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Grinch2 said:


> If I was in this situation first off I'd like to say hats off to whoever got past my dogs, cause if they get past my Rottweiler, Australian Cattle Dog and Boerboel, ha, well then I'm not sure my AR would do the job. And you might have an excuse like ' oh they threw a steak ' a stranger wanting to hurt my fiance those dogs will shred them, I'd bet my life on that.
> 
> Secondly I never said we'd bury all of our AR's, maybe our " souped up " ones sure, not all of mine are " souped up ".
> 
> ...


My point is, throughout my lifetime there has been an incremental approach to taking guns off the market and outlawing those that are here. The AR has been banned in one state; another is working on it. California ARs are a joke.

The Heller decision is going to allow the states to outlaw *ALL* guns, one category at a time. Everything under six inches is a Saturday Night Special; those over six inches long are assault weapons. Shotguns are street-sweepers or scatter-guns and bolt action rifles are sniper rifles. The point I'm trying to make is that preppers need to be thinking about the options they have and what they are really going to do. I'm not going to jail if I have to defend my life or someone else's. So, why are we allowing Uncle Scam to put us in that position?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

It's always been incremental, like our taxes, privacy, and freedom. Nothing new, I have been saying it for years. They will legislate, regulate, tax, and adjudicate till 2A is but a memory, along with our freedoms, privacy, and our money. They don't need 2A to be repealed.

Now I fight the good fight. I look more closely at local elections and vet my choices for office more closely, but in the end we are loosing the war. At the rate our indoctrination centers are churning out snowflake, liberal, PC socialists, I don't see it ending well for this once great Republic. I believe, at this point, nothing short of a reset is going to right the ship. My friend @Slippy believes we are 1 or 2 generations away. I think we are perhaps, closer then one would think. No matter, the time will come when hard decisions will have to be made.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> The Heller decision is going to allow the states to outlaw *ALL* guns, one category at a time. Everything under six inches is a Saturday Night Special; those over six inches long are assault weapons. Shotguns are street-sweepers or scatter-guns and bolt action rifles are sniper rifles. The point I'm trying to make is that preppers need to be thinking about the options they have and what they are really going to do. I'm not going to jail if I have to defend my life or someone else's. So, why are we allowing Uncle Scam to put us in that position?


I've given up on you ever seeing the light on the need to restrict the courts, so I'll move on to this poor interpretation of the Heller decision that has you up in arms (pun intended).

A reading of Heller does not, in any way, allow for the future banning of categories of guns, and in fact refutes this point specifically. Aside from the holding that the 2A is an individual right, the Heller decision goes on to point out the purpose of the 2A was to allow for self-defense. They specifically noted that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628). They referenced the Miller decision in order to point out the understanding that the 2A intended to protect "arms" that were "in common use at the time". They interpreted this to mean that a firearm "in common use" cannot summarily be banned from lawful use for defense. This caused them to hold that the complete and outright ban of an entire category of commonly used guns, the handgun, could not be outlawed from being owned and legally used in the home for defense. Because the handgun is so common, its use cannot be banned.
It would be an outlandish stretch of the imagination to place any limits on any other firearm that is so common, whether that be the shotgun or the rifle.
If any state attempted to use Heller to support a ban on an entire category of firearms, the defense need only use Heller to refute the position.

The line you chose to quote from Heller is taken grossly out of context, and is insufficient to make a claim that the decision can be used to further degrade gun rights with future bans. The quote was intended to state that, similar to not yelling fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire, rights are not without acceptable restrictions. A shoulder fired RPG, for example, is not "in common use", and would thus be allowable for banning under the Heller decision(not that I agree, but this would be a proper interpretation), but not any common firearm owned by millions of Americans.


----------



## luminaughty (Dec 16, 2014)

In a time when we all know there are those within our government who are monitoring our every post, comment, and communication. I would expect that most would know better than to post threats or promises of future actions in response to our governments unconstitutional actions. That being said I not only hope but I believe their will be enough people who will resist at all costs the tyrannies attempt to disarm and control the population and at least give those who cherish our freedoms and rights a fighting chance. In respond to some of the replies I have read that stood out. First in reference to the Bundy standoff the armed citizens who showed up to defend and protect Bundy family and property from government over reach likely helped limit the governments abuse of power but the reason for the governments decision to stand down was made had more to do with the fear that if this had escalated with so many already angry with the governments abuse of power it could very well have been the spark to ignite a fire that would have spread nationwide. As always the government looks for times to abuse its power when they believe the backlash will be manageable such as the case with LaVoy Finicum who was met by a roadblock in a curve with the road banked in snow forcing him to drive his truck into the snow bank. After exiting his truck with no weapon in his hands and his hands up one or more federal agents opened fire and murdered him. The passengers in the truck who also did not open fire or brandish weapons were also fired on forcing them to get down low for cover. No one was ever prosecuted for the murder of Finicum and actual aerial footage leaked online clearly show it was a planned ambush and murder. This was a message to others who might contemplate standing up to the blm just as Bundy with the help of other citizens had successfully done earlier. To the suggestions that some restrictions are acceptable I would remind those who understand the true intent of our Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting as most had to survive by what they grew or hunted (no big grocery stores back then) and it was written with defence in mind but primarily as a means for citizens to defend themselves from government abuse of power (tyranny). That being said it would stand to reason that the citizens should be able to arm themselves well enough to be resist a tyrannical government and any forces under its control. As to the off the wall idiotic comment I read asking if a vial of anthrax would be covered under the Second Amendment I do not understand what that has to do with small arms and artillery witch are tools for defence. To restrict the size of a magazine makes no impact on crime as almost nobody in this day and time will charge a gunman even when he is reloading (which takes very little time). As to the fully automatic firearms (true assault rifles) I do believe if that is what a person believes is best for them there should be no restrictions on owning them. The restrictions on silencers should also be removed. Personally I don't have a need for full autos as many rounds are wasted and I could not afford to feed the thing anyway but in a short range firefight when you are outnumbered and can not retreat a fully automatic maybe the difference between life and death. For those who think our government would never attempt to disarm and rule the citizens stick your head back in the sand and pretend everything's alright because by the time you see the danger it will be too late.


----------



## RUSH25 (Nov 20, 2015)

now that is a block of text.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They will not repeal the 2nd. They will just allow 5 of 9 to change the meaning. Easier faster and full proof plan.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

luminaughty said:


> In a time when we all know there are those within our government who are monitoring our every post, comment, and communication. I would expect that most would know better than to post threats or promises of future actions in response to our governments unconstitutional actions. That being said I not only hope but I believe their will be enough people who will resist at all costs the tyrannies attempt to disarm and control the population and at least give those who cherish our freedoms and rights a fighting chance. In respond to some of the replies I have read that stood out. First in reference to the Bundy standoff the armed citizens who showed up to defend and protect Bundy family and property from government over reach likely helped limit the governments abuse of power but the reason for the governments decision to stand down was made had more to do with the fear that if this had escalated with so many already angry with the governments abuse of power it could very well have been the spark to ignite a fire that would have spread nationwide. As always the government looks for times to abuse its power when they believe the backlash will be manageable such as the case with LaVoy Finicum who was met by a roadblock in a curve with the road banked in snow forcing him to drive his truck into the snow bank. After exiting his truck with no weapon in his hands and his hands up one or more federal agents opened fire and murdered him. The passengers in the truck who also did not open fire or brandish weapons were also fired on forcing them to get down low for cover. No one was ever prosecuted for the murder of Finicum and actual aerial footage leaked online clearly show it was a planned ambush and murder. This was a message to others who might contemplate standing up to the blm just as Bundy with the help of other citizens had successfully done earlier. To the suggestions that some restrictions are acceptable I would remind those who understand the true intent of our Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting as most had to survive by what they grew or hunted (no big grocery stores back then) and it was written with defence in mind but primarily as a means for citizens to defend themselves from government abuse of power (tyranny). That being said it would stand to reason that the citizens should be able to arm themselves well enough to be resist a tyrannical government and any forces under its control. As to the off the wall idiotic comment I read asking if a vial of anthrax would be covered under the Second Amendment I do not understand what that has to do with small arms and artillery witch are tools for defence. To restrict the size of a magazine makes no impact on crime as almost nobody in this day and time will charge a gunman even when he is reloading (which takes very little time). As to the fully automatic firearms (true assault rifles) I do believe if that is what a person believes is best for them there should be no restrictions on owning them. The restrictions on silencers should also be removed. Personally I don't have a need for full autos as many rounds are wasted and I could not afford to feed the thing anyway but in a short range firefight when you are outnumbered and can not retreat a fully automatic maybe the difference between life and death. For those who think our government would never attempt to disarm and rule the citizens stick your head back in the sand and pretend everything's alright because by the time you see the danger it will be too late.


Holy CRAP! Break that down into paragraphs, please! My eyes started to bleed when I tried to read that!

Some of us are old. :crying:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I've given up you you ever seeing the light on the need to restrict the courts, so I'll move on to this poor interpretation of the Heller decision that has you up in arms (pun intended).
> 
> A reading of Heller does not, in any way, allow for the future banning of categories of guns, and in fact refutes this point specifically. Aside from the holding that the 2A is an individual right, the Heller decision goes on to point out the purpose of the 2A was to allow for self-defense. They specifically noted that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628). They referenced the Miller decision in order to point out the understanding that the 2A intended to protect "arms" that were "in common use at the time". They interpreted this to mean that a firearm "in common use" cannot summarily be banned from lawful use for defense. This caused them to hold that the complete and outright ban of an entire category of commonly used guns, the handgun, could not be outlawed from being owned and legally used in the home for defense. Because the handgun is so common, its use cannot be banned.
> It would be an outlandish stretch of the imagination to place any limits on any other firearm that is so common, whether that be the shotgun or the rifle.
> ...


Sir, I spent several decades working IN the law. The *HOLDING* of the Heller decision is as follows:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..."

The HOLDING is not dicta (the rationale of the Court); it is not an Justice's opinion; it's not a dissenting opinion. The HOLDING is the law.

Ammoland disagrees with your assessment:

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/ar-15-rifles-no-longer-included-second-amendment/#axzz5Buxv5cdc

Newsweek upholds my observation:

A Right to an AR-15? Look to the Courts, Not Congress

States *ARE* banning semi autos:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/6/federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapon/

Another news article has more to say about it:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...udge-upholds-Massachusetts-assault-weapon-ban

If you're challenging my credentials on the ability to read and understand the law, be advised I have a legal education and pretty damn good track record... so let's compare them with yours. You go first. You only see the strengths of your own argument, forgetting the other side has some points as well. The closer you are to the local level, the easier it is to change the law. So, we obviously cannot work together because I know how the other side is going to argue and if you can't discuss that and plan accordingly, you will lose. Period.

There are a lot of judges, at every level, that believe what I told you. Heller was the worst decision that the United States Supreme Court has handed down in my lifetime.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Prepared One said:


> It's always been incremental, like our taxes, privacy, and freedom. Nothing new, I have been saying it for years. They will legislate, regulate, tax, and adjudicate till 2A is but a memory, along with our freedoms, privacy, and our money. They don't need 2A to be repealed.
> 
> Now I fight the good fight. I look more closely at local elections and vet my choices for office more closely, but in the end we are loosing the war. At the rate our indoctrination centers are churning out snowflake, liberal, PC socialists, I don't see it ending well for this once great Republic. I believe, at this point, nothing short of a reset is going to right the ship. My friend @Slippy believes we are 1 or 2 generations away. I think we are perhaps, closer then one would think. No matter, the time will come when hard decisions will have to be made.


I would concur with Slippy. Donald Trump will be the last president before America slides into the dark ages. But, if you are a prepper, it's time that you started dealing with the facts and deciding what you're going to do WHEN the inevitable happens. It's closer than we think.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

luminaughty said:


> In a time when we all know there are those within our government who are monitoring our every post, comment, and communication. I would expect that most would know better than to post threats or promises of future actions in response to our governments unconstitutional actions. That being said I not only hope but I believe their will be enough people who will resist at all costs the tyrannies attempt to disarm and control the population and at least give those who cherish our freedoms and rights a fighting chance. In respond to some of the replies I have read that stood out. First in reference to the Bundy standoff the armed citizens who showed up to defend and protect Bundy family and property from government over reach likely helped limit the governments abuse of power but the reason for the governments decision to stand down was made had more to do with the fear that if this had escalated with so many already angry with the governments abuse of power it could very well have been the spark to ignite a fire that would have spread nationwide. As always the government looks for times to abuse its power when they believe the backlash will be manageable such as the case with LaVoy Finicum who was met by a roadblock in a curve with the road banked in snow forcing him to drive his truck into the snow bank. After exiting his truck with no weapon in his hands and his hands up one or more federal agents opened fire and murdered him. The passengers in the truck who also did not open fire or brandish weapons were also fired on forcing them to get down low for cover. No one was ever prosecuted for the murder of Finicum and actual aerial footage leaked online clearly show it was a planned ambush and murder. This was a message to others who might contemplate standing up to the blm just as Bundy with the help of other citizens had successfully done earlier. To the suggestions that some restrictions are acceptable I would remind those who understand the true intent of our Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting as most had to survive by what they grew or hunted (no big grocery stores back then) and it was written with defence in mind but primarily as a means for citizens to defend themselves from government abuse of power (tyranny). That being said it would stand to reason that the citizens should be able to arm themselves well enough to be resist a tyrannical government and any forces under its control. As to the off the wall idiotic comment I read asking if a vial of anthrax would be covered under the Second Amendment I do not understand what that has to do with small arms and artillery witch are tools for defence. To restrict the size of a magazine makes no impact on crime as almost nobody in this day and time will charge a gunman even when he is reloading (which takes very little time). As to the fully automatic firearms (true assault rifles) I do believe if that is what a person believes is best for them there should be no restrictions on owning them. The restrictions on silencers should also be removed. Personally I don't have a need for full autos as many rounds are wasted and I could not afford to feed the thing anyway but in a short range firefight when you are outnumbered and can not retreat a fully automatic maybe the difference between life and death. For those who think our government would never attempt to disarm and rule the citizens stick your head back in the sand and pretend everything's alright because by the time you see the danger it will be too late.


I vote for paragraphs. I agree with almost all you said except finding those who will stand together when the time comes. Right now, it should be the bump stock issue. States that are *legislating* gun control have legislators subject to the will of the people. They can be voted out of office. The Attorney General cannot be voted out, but we will have an easier time passing legislation that protects us from Jeff Sessions and his attempt to enforce unconstitutional ex post facto laws than to pass any constitutional amendments.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> They will not repeal the 2nd. They will just allow 5 of 9 to change the meaning. Easier faster and full proof plan.


They are not doing it that way, however. The states are using the Heller decision to outlaw firearms and magazines AND the Attorney General is using making unconstitutional rulings based upon a violation of ex post facto provisions to outlaw parts and so forth. Covered it in many other postings on this thread.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> They are not doing it that way, however. The states are using the Heller decision to outlaw firearms and magazines AND the Attorney General is using making unconstitutional rulings based upon a violation of ex post facto provisions to outlaw parts and so forth. Covered it in many other postings on this thread.


 Chip away here and there Each state as the get the numbers on state courts will eat away last the US Supreme court will do the same.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

luminaughty said:


> In a time when we all know there are those within our government who are monitoring our every post, comment, and communication. I would expect that most would know better than to post threats or promises of future actions in response to our governments unconstitutional actions.


That's cute: 
http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/101441-all-firearms-now-banned-thread-1-2-a.html
http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/101449-all-firearms-now-banned-thread-2-2-a.html



luminaughty said:


> To the suggestions that some restrictions are acceptable I would remind those who understand the true intent of our Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting as most had to survive by what they grew or hunted (no big grocery stores back then) and it was written with defense in mind but primarily as a means for citizens to defend themselves from government abuse of power (tyranny). That being said it would stand to reason that the citizens should be able to arm themselves well enough to be resist a tyrannical government and any forces under its control.


Unless you can make the case for a civilian to own literally anything that can be defined as "arms", then you too accept that restrictions are warranted.



luminaughty said:


> As to the off the wall idiotic comment I read asking if a vial of anthrax would be covered under the Second Amendment I do not understand what that has to do with small arms and artillery which are tools for defense.


Context, dude... context. That was an example, just as above, where a restriction is clearly warranted on what weapons can be owned and carried. It was a logical argument known as "reductio ad absurdum". It was intended to be "off the wall" to prove the point that we all agree on some limits. Where that line is drawn is what people like to debate. Why should you decide what defensive tools we are limited to for defense? Your position is from a point of view where you are deciding for others what they should be limited to, when you just spoke about unacceptable restrictions.

As others have eluded to, formatting is your friend.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Sir, I spent several decades working IN the law. The *HOLDING* of the Heller decision is as follows:
> 
> "_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_..."
> 
> ...


You are all about the pissing matches, aren't you?
Do you go into court and demand you're right because of your education?
Let's have your firm's name and the degree you received, let us fact check you first.
Otherwise, you're just a blowhard pretending to be something he isn't.

I don't fall for the logical fallacy of authority.
If you can only make your case because of your degree (which you didn't actually claim to have received), then you have no real case.
What is *right* is not determined by consensus.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I would concur with Slippy. Donald Trump will be the last president before America slides into the dark ages. But, if you are a prepper, it's time that you started dealing with the facts and deciding what you're going to do WHEN the inevitable happens. It's closer than we think.


I see the facts clearly. Regarding the decisions having to be made, I have made them.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Chip away here and there Each state as the get the numbers on state courts will eat away last the US Supreme court will do the same.


You need an action plan to turn things around OR a contingency plan in case the contingency plan don't work or if you're not going to do anything


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Denton said:


> I wonder if I'm going to be asked to step down from my mod position.


You go, I go.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> You are all about the pissing matches, aren't you?
> Do you go into court and demand you're right because of your education?
> Let's have your firm's name and the degree you received, let us fact check you first.
> Otherwise, you're just a blowhard pretending to be something he isn't.
> ...


I called you on it first. You have to go first OR simply admit you have no legal background upon which to challenge me.

And no, I do not go into court demanding anything on the basis of who I am, etc. I do make demands in pleadings when the situation so warrants... i.e. Plaintiff demands satisfaction in the above case according to law.

I didn't claim to be a damn thing, sir. I said if you have better qualifications, produce them. You can't. That makes YOU the blowhard because, while you were blowing smoke, I produced actual links to people more qualified than you to tell you that *YOU ARE WRONG*.

I don't particularly like pissing matches, but I'm not the one who starts their threads with smart ass comments either. What did you say about me again?

"_I've given up you you ever seeing the light on the need to restrict the courts, so I'll move on to this poor interpretation of the Heller decision that has you up in arms (pun intended)_."

Who in the Hell are you to school me when you cannot produce any facts to back your claim? Seems to me that you want the pissing match.

I've been confident enough in my posts to produce the facts and allow people to ask a question based upon the posting. But, when we have board gurus that think they can school everyone, the facts don't seem to matter. Your advice will get a person sent to jail, Hell, or certain political / legal defeat. That's a fact.

I'm offering my base of knowledge for the good of the movement. Now, I challenge you to get off your high horse, read those links, and simply admit that maybe the dumbass got it right... he just might be worth listening to.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

:deadhorse:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Chiefster23 said:


> :deadhorse:


Here is what it would take to cease having these pissing contests:

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/104298-nice-2.html

Click that link above. Make a note of post #16. What Kauboy says *IS* condescending. But, there were steps others could take to avoid the pissing match.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> You need an action plan to turn things around OR a contingency plan in case the contingency plan don't work or if you're not going to do anything


 I have been planning a life . This state just elected another to the State Supreme that will change the mean of our states right to own and have fire arms , she also supports using the court to do away with CC. All they need now is one more vote.
Young man I work for and fought for CC in this state for 20 years. What liberal Governor veto it . was there the day Our current governor signed it into law. The new justice is 100% committed to over turning state Constitution and laws from the bench. It is her duty to do so.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

I would get my popcorn, but I swear I'm watching a rerun.

TFLDR.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Coastie dad said:


> I would get my popcorn, but I swear I'm watching a rerun.
> 
> TFLDR.


Never mind the bollocks, _MAN THOSE CANNONS!!!!!_


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> I called you on it first. You have to go first OR simply admit you have no legal background upon which to challenge me.
> 
> And no, I do not go into court demanding anything on the basis of who I am, etc. I do make demands in pleadings when the situation so warrants... i.e. Plaintiff demands satisfaction in the above case according to law.
> 
> ...


If we're talking about "firsts", it was you who first proposed your background as reason for your opinion being considered above anyone else's. Yet, you fail to produce any support for this claim. Without evidential support, the claim can be rightly disregarded. I never claimed *my* background as support for any position I hold. You did. So, put up or shut up.

As to the legal argument itself, kindly walk me through the contradictory argument you are making.
First, you quote Heller:
_"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."_

That full quote, if you'd bothered to include it, is as follows:


> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. *Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.*


You claimed that this portion was a potential basis for... how did you put it?


> The Heller decision is going to allow the states to outlaw *ALL* guns, one category at a time.


Yet...
If you'd bothered to read point 3 from the HOLDING: (which I did)


> The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. *The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster.* Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.


It states EXACTLY what I claimed, because that's where I pulled it from. Not the majority opinion, not the dissenting opinion, but the HOLDING, same as you.
So, the HOLDING of the court was three-fold.
1. The right is an individual one.
2. States have the ability to restrict the ownership and/or carry of "dangerous and unusual weapons", from "sensitive places", that are NOT "in common use at the time"
3. The outright ban on an entire class of commonly used defensive "arms" would fail constitutional muster

Now... since the court found that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional because it sought to ban an entire category of arms, how can you sit on your pedestal and tell us that this decision will be used to promote future bans on "*ALL* guns, one category at a time"?

So, as you can see, I pulled my argument from the holding too. I'd love to see you explain how you didn't realize it, or misunderstood, since you claim to be a professional in this field, and specifically on this topic and case.

If anyone else wants to confirm this, they can read what the court "held" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
Or straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> If we're talking about "firsts", it was you who first proposed your background as reason for your opinion being considered above anyone else's. Yet, you fail to produce any support for this claim. Without evidential support, the claim can be rightly disregarded. I never claimed *my* background as support for any position I hold. You did. So, put up or shut up.
> 
> As to the legal argument itself, kindly walk me through the contradictory argument you are making.
> First, you quote Heller:
> ...


 @The Resister 
My observation here, Mr. Resister, is you need no longer assert that no one on this forum is willing to read or write more than 10 words or so... beyond a platitude, a meme, or a bumper sticker philosophy. This seems to me a comprehensive argument and answer, and no short changing on time and effort. You must surely be pleased.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Another news article has more to say about it:
> 
> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...udge-upholds-Massachusetts-assault-weapon-ban


I finally made it through all of the articles you provided, and I was shocked at the last one... You should be too.
You might not be familiar with The Daily KOS, but they are a horrid little corner of the internet.
In this article, they cite the words of a judge who ruled in the mentioned case, and the judge themselves apparently chose to outright lie:


> Judge Young in his ruling cited the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller:
> 
> 
> > More specifically, Justice Scalia explained that "weapons that are most useful in military service - M16 rifles and the like" are not protected under the Second Amendment and "may be banned."


When we search for this portion of the opinion, we find the full context: (Judge's misleading quote is underlined)


> It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
> in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be
> banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
> detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
> ...


Can anyone read that full opinion, and agree with Judge Young's overt misrepresentation?
Clearly Scalia was far more intelligent than Young, but in his passing, cannot defend himself.

This... this right here, is why @Smitty901's concern is warranted. Judges can make up anything, and we have no recourse against them short of impeachment, and that isn't likely.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Some are under a serious misconception that our system is based on 3 parts those that make the law, those that enforce the law and those that apply the law in court and define the meaning when needed. Ok joke is on you. I was like that for the most part, that has been slowly changing and about 9 years ago went full speed in a new direction. Law is now what ever you can get before a Judge that supports your agenda. They will rule so far outside the law no one understands it.
Our LE agency's are nothing more than political advocates for the cause that suit them best. We have officials with hold evidence from other branches of the government and nothing is done. We have FBI and IRS officials lie to congress and think it is a joke. Nothing ever done.
We have DA's that refuse to charge Black people for crimes but lock a white person up for years for the same crime . We have COP that tells gang members to go out and steal cars in the suburbs and leave the city alone. And if you do we will not come after you.
This is the face of socialism, this is Marxism taking control by any means. Break down the rule of law. Don't ask if S will HTF. Try to figure out when it all blows up.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Well @Smitty901 , I guess when it comes to the courts it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is..........

I agree with you. For years the courts have ruled not on the law, but rather the agenda of the liberal left. They legislate from the bench and have way to much power. They are part of the problem, not the answer.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

StratMaster said:


> @The Resister
> My observation here, Mr. Resister, is you need no longer assert that no one on this forum is willing to read or write more than 10 words or so... beyond a platitude, a meme, or a bumper sticker philosophy. This seems to me a comprehensive argument and answer, and no short changing on time and effort. You must surely be pleased.


You'll have to put more effort into that if you expect me to fully understand the implications.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Some are under a serious misconception that our system is based on 3 parts those that make the law, those that enforce the law and those that apply the law in court and define the meaning when needed. Ok joke is on you. I was like that for the most part, that has been slowly changing and about 9 years ago went full speed in a new direction. Law is now what ever you can get before a Judge that supports your agenda. They will rule so far outside the law no one understands it.
> Our LE agency's are nothing more than political advocates for the cause that suit them best. We have officials with hold evidence from other branches of the government and nothing is done. We have FBI and IRS officials lie to congress and think it is a joke. Nothing ever done.
> We have DA's that refuse to charge Black people for crimes but lock a white person up for years for the same crime . We have COP that tells gang members to go out and steal cars in the suburbs and leave the city alone. And if you do we will not come after you.
> This is the face of socialism, this is Marxism taking control by any means. Break down the rule of law. Don't ask if S will HTF. Try to figure out when it all blows up.


Smitty, despite what I was taught in school, the truth is, there are *SIX* branches of government not 3. You were taught that there is are the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government. Here are the other three:

1) Regulatory agencies and private pseudo - "_government_" entities (IRS, DFACS, CPS, and the "Federal Reserve" are the most famous)

2) Multinational Corporations

3) The media

Yes, we need a way to reform the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, but we've got to have a whole strategy. The other five branches of government are dedicated to stopping you from changing the status quo in the United States Supreme Court. Here is the reason:

Those nine robed Justices do not answer to stockholders or the voters. Your best short term strategy is to identify all the Appeals Courts and make sure that not one more Marxist / Socialist finds their way there. Keep the issues from reaching the Supreme Court. That don't mean you abandon the effort to make the Supreme Court accountable; you just want to expend some resources on the other branches of government. BTW, before Shawn Hannity became the big deal he is today and still a talk show on am radio, he'd drop me a line from time to time when he worked for WSB in Atlanta. He would always joke that he was from the fourth branch of government. Turns out, he wasn't joking at all.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I finally made it through all of the articles you provided, and I was shocked at the last one... You should be too.
> You might not be familiar with The Daily KOS, but they are a horrid little corner of the internet.
> In this article, they cite the words of a judge who ruled in the mentioned case, and the judge themselves apparently chose to outright lie:
> 
> ...


I've *NEVER* said that Smitty901 should not have a grave concern. But the reality is, if you look at the first United States Supreme Court cases, you find that the Right to keep and bear Arms Is not a Right granted by the Constitution, AND that the Right predates the Constitution. Yet, the fact is, unless you got one of the pre ban M16s from the mid 1980s or earlier, you are SOL.

What you fail to understand is that courts take a precedent here and precedent there and cobble it together to get the result they want. The real culprit is simply that we allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. For if the state courts AND United States Supreme Court said the Right to keep and bear Arms was *absolute* in their *FIRST* rulings, then the Heller decision had* no authority* to rule opposite. That should have been up to the legislators.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> If we're talking about "firsts", it was you who first proposed your background as reason for your opinion being considered above anyone else's. Yet, you fail to produce any support for this claim. Without evidential support, the claim can be rightly disregarded. I never claimed *my* background as support for any position I hold. You did. So, put up or shut up.
> 
> As to the legal argument itself, kindly walk me through the contradictory argument you are making.
> First, you quote Heller:
> ...


You must have gotten your degree from the* S*ugar *H*ill *I*nstitute of *T*echnology. I hear they specialize in degrees in cow manure.

First off, I have* not *said that people should take my opinion above everybody else's. But, I have told you that what I write about is what I've done - professionally most of my life. It just needs to be considered without having rank amateurs pretend they are going to "_school me_."

Secondly, the facts are that states and local governments *ARE* using the Heller decision as a basis to outlaw AR 15 rifles, magazines, etc. Additionally, regardless of what* YOU* think the law is or what I think it is, the Courts (Specifically the United States Supreme Court) has unilaterally declared that they, *NOT*, we the people, are the final arbiters of what the law is.

Rather than argue with me over it, wait until the next case is going to be reviewed in a federal appeals court of the Supreme Court. Submit an Amicus Curaie brief and see if convinces the judges. Do that and you can earn some crowing rights you can even tell your grandchildren about. Right now, whether you agree or disagree; the Heller decision HAS been used to outlaw many semi-automatic weapons like the AR 15 and you cannot even own the real M 16 (and the Miller decision protects those, but future rulings took even that from us.)


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> I have been planning a life . This state just elected another to the State Supreme that will change the mean of our states right to own and have fire arms , she also supports using the court to do away with CC. All they need now is one more vote.
> Young man I work for and fought for CC in this state for 20 years. What liberal Governor veto it . was there the day Our current governor signed it into law. The new justice is 100% committed to over turning state Constitution and laws from the bench. It is her duty to do so.


Young man? I finished Bible College in 1979 and was politically active by the early 80s to the point that our local newspaper said I was the most quoted man in Georgia - particularly when I resigned my lobbying job with the NRA because they had us working our asses off to work against a so-called "_armor piercing bullet ban_" while secretly telling some politicians they would still finance them if they voted for it. I served a stint as a Justice of the Peace (now known as magistrates) when you had your first two years in this stuff.

I'm still pretty young though I guess. This year I will graduate again, this time with my certificate in Christian Education with my thesis being on the Christian History of the United States. Thank you for the compliment, however. In between those times it would take a book to list all the things I got involved and the years I've spent in schools.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> I've *NEVER* said that Smitty901 should not have a grave concern. But the reality is, if you look at the first United States Supreme Court cases, you find that the Right to keep and bear Arms Is not a Right granted by the Constitution, AND that the Right predates the Constitution. Yet, the fact is, unless you got one of the pre ban M16s from the mid 1980s or earlier, you are SOL.
> 
> What you fail to understand is that courts take a precedent here and precedent there and cobble it together to get the result they want. The real culprit is simply that we allow the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. For if the state courts AND United States Supreme Court said the Right to keep and bear Arms was *absolute* in their *FIRST* rulings, then the Heller decision had* no authority* to rule opposite. That should have been up to the legislators.


No right is granted by the Constitution. All rights are granted by God. They are only protected by the Bill of Rights.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

The Resister said:


> You'll have to put more effort into that if you expect me to fully understand the implications.


There ARE no other implications to understand, it's a very simple statement... no need to always try to read between the lines looking for a hidden message or criticism. Indeed, in one of your messages in response to me, you did lament a certain lack of full engagement by many respondents. You seem to be getting the fuller engagement you desired. I have been reading and enjoying this vigorous exchange, rather than participating, because it is not my area of expertise.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

StratMaster said:


> There ARE no other implications to understand, it's a very simple statement... no need to always try to read between the lines looking for a hidden message or criticism. Indeed, in one of your messages in response to me, you did lament a certain lack of full engagement by many respondents. You seem to be getting the fuller engagement you desired. I have been reading and enjoying this vigorous exchange, rather than participating, because it is not my area of expertise.


If you have benefited off the substantive parts of this thread, then it has been shown that some here don't always need an echo chamber.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> No right is granted by the Constitution. All rights are granted by God. They are only protected by the Bill of Rights.


While I fully agree with what you're saying, the Courts have finagled a way to jerk our chain with technicalities. For example, the words inalienable and *unalienable* were synonymous. Today, an *unalienable* Right is just that... exactly as you describe. The word _inalienable_, however, is no longer synonymous. _Inalienable_ rights can be aliened if you give consent.

With an *unalienable* Right, you cannot forfeit it. For example, you cannot agree to let a rich satanist sacrifice your life in a bloody ritual if he pays to send your kid to college. You do not have the Right to forfeit your own Life. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. And, in our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic you cannot be denied those Rights.

An inalienable right, however, can be aliened. For example, "_you have right to remain silent; If you give up that right._.." The courts defined the two words differently in case law.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

*HELLER STILL A BAD DECISION*

I've been butting heads with people that do not accept the fact regarding what Heller says. I started researching as to what other attorneys and professional legal researchers said. This is what the FIRST site I looked at had to say:

"_The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain "presumptively lawful," according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," (5) *prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons,"* and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas_."

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

Courts are going to outlaw most weapons on the installment plan because ALL weapons can be dangerous. Furthermore, no matter how many times you read the decision, not all of it is the law. Most of what is in the decision is called dicta. In layman terms it is B.S. they say to arrive at in order to get the holding and the dicta may even be contradictory to the final decision.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> While I fully agree with what you're saying, the Courts have finagled a way to jerk our chain with technicalities. For example, the words inalienable and *unalienable* were synonymous. Today, an *unalienable* Right is just that... exactly as you describe. The word _inalienable_, however, is no longer synonymous. _Inalienable_ rights can be aliened if you give consent.
> 
> With an *unalienable* Right, you cannot forfeit it. For example, you cannot agree to let a rich satanist sacrifice your life in a bloody ritual if he pays to send your kid to college. You do not have the Right to forfeit your own Life. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. And, in our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic you cannot be denied those Rights.
> 
> An inalienable right, however, can be aliened. For example, "_you have right to remain silent; If you give up that right._.." The courts defined the two words differently in case law.


I never use the word _inalienable_, preferring the original words. Also, it is important to define words. If you do not define words, they will be defined for you.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> I never use the word _inalienable_, preferring the original words. Also, it is important to define words. If you do not define words, they will be defined for you.


Amazing as this sounds, you're the first person I've run across on these discussion boards who understood that concept. Maybe you're not as think as you dumb I am.

You would be amazed, even after you show countless examples of how those words were defined by the courts differently and still, most will call the Second Amendment an inalienable right, unable to fathom why they are losing the right.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> Amazing as this sounds, you're the first person I've run across on these discussion boards who understood that concept. Maybe you're not as think as you dumb I am.
> 
> You would be amazed, even after you show countless examples of how those words were defined by the courts differently and still, most will call the Second Amendment an inalienable right, unable to fathom why they are losing the right.


I learned a thing or two when assisting in the preparation of Title 42 suits. Definitions are a requirement, as silly as that may sound to laymen.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is." While Clinton was demurring when he said that, he was being factual.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> *HELLER STILL A BAD DECISION*
> 
> I've been butting heads with people that do not accept the fact regarding what Heller says. I started researching as to what other attorneys and professional legal researchers said. This is what the FIRST site I looked at had to say:
> 
> ...


Firstly, I can't help but notice you completely ignored the points I made in my previous post, where I used the same court holding as you, but you disregarded it.
I'll accept that as tacit agreement that I was indeed just as right in my argument as you.

Secondly, you openly admit that the courts are the problem, but disregard my proposal to amend the constitution to take that final say away from them. Explain yourself.

Third, your quote above is specific and meaningful... likely more so than you realize. Like other pseudo legal eagles, you pick and choose what you want to from the law and from court decisions, when in reality, the whole must be considered. The phrase "dangerous and unusual weapons" has a key word in it. Not "dangerous", not "unusual", and not even "weapon". *"AND"* is the most important word in that phrase.
They cannot legally ban all weapons simply because they are "dangerous". Weapons are inherently dangerous, and this descriptor isn't even needed. If future cases use the holding from Heller, they must prove the weapon is "dangerous *AND* unusual".
Yes, it's a nitpick, but it's specifically and intentionally worded. Far more intelligent men worded that holding than you or I.

How the ruling gets ABUSED is not justification to claim that Heller was bad. It's justification for why we should amend the constitution to put the final say into the hands of the people, via their representatives of the many states.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Firstly, I can't help but notice you completely ignored the points I made in my previous post, where I used the same court holding as you, but you disregarded it.
> I'll accept that as tacit agreement that I was indeed just as right in my argument as you.
> 
> Secondly, you openly admit that the courts are the problem, but disregard my proposal to amend the constitution to take that final say away from them. Explain yourself.
> ...


1) As my subsequent posts have shown, not everything IN the decision equals law. Dicta is not law. What is important is the *HOLDING*. I don't have to argue with you. All I have to do is show that states and local jurisdictions *HAVE* relied on Heller to outlaw the AR 15 and high capacity magazines. I did that

2) I'm not against what you hope to gain in your fight with the courts. You also did not support my strategy that while you're trying to play David v Goliath, you should have a strategy that weakens a superior opponent by chipping away at their foundations so it became more of a personality contest rather than an opportunity to think about how we prepare and deal with the inevitable

3) Like yourself, I read the plain English and wonder how people who are supposedly more intelligent than us can make rulings that do not square with history or even the law they are interpreting. I read the dissents in Heller and wonder how any bumbling idiot could possibly write such utter nonsense. Or put another way, these guys said it all:

*Video removed due to language. Thanks, Penn. Dummy.*


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The problem is that the judges are not removed once they step out of the boundary of "good behavior." Ruling in a manner that runs contrary to the constitution is bad behavior.
That is to say, all activist judges should be removed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> 1) As my subsequent posts have shown, not everything IN the decision equals law. Dicta is not law. What is important is the *HOLDING*.


I can't help but continue to return to this point.
You claimed to quote the court's "holding".
I also quoted the court's holding, but you scoff at it as if I didn't do so.

For all to see, and verify whether I argued from the holding or random opinion, kindly provide here, in its entirety, the HOLDING from D.C. v Heller. Just the HOLDING. Just the part you are claiming is law, and that I didn't quote directly from. Not the first line of #2, as you've provided twice already, but the entire thing, which I'm fairly certain I've already given. I just need to see you do it.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> The problem is that the judges are not removed once they step out of the boundary of "good behavior." Ruling in a manner that runs contrary to the constitution is bad behavior.
> That is to say, all activist judges should be removed.


The courts have usurped the authority of the legislature. We're only going to get our country back when we tackle the entire judicial side of the equation.

Note: The link led to a bad word, but there was no bad word in the posting. Maybe a warning of language would have been appropriate to those who might access it. Penn and Teller are atheists, so I don't have a lot in common with them, but they got that Second Amendment thing down pretty good.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> The courts have usurped the authority of the legislature. We're only going to get our country back when we tackle the entire judicial side of the equation.
> 
> Note: The link led to a bad word, but there was no bad word in the posting. Maybe a warning of language would have been appropriate to those who might access it. Penn and Teller are atheists, so I don't have a lot in common with them, but they got that Second Amendment thing down pretty good.


I didn't say there was foul language in the post. As a matter of fact, the message I left was, "*Video removed due to language. Thanks, Penn. Dummy.*"
No; we don't give warnings and then post a video with foul language. You can post it in the Bunker, though. Most everyone accesses the Bunker and can see it, there.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> I can't help but continue to return to this point.
> You claimed to quote the court's "holding".
> I also quoted the court's holding, but you scoff at it as if I didn't do so.
> 
> For all to see, and verify whether I argued from the holding or random opinion, kindly provide here, in its entirety, the HOLDING from D.C. v Heller. Just the HOLDING. Just the part you are claiming is law, and that I didn't quote directly from. Not the first line of #2, as you've provided twice already, but the entire thing, which I'm fairly certain I've already given. I just need to see you do it.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

There it is. That's all of it. Note this little part the socialists are going to go ape manure over:

"_United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather* limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes*. Pp. 47-54_."

How many here want me to explain how the left spins this? Hint: a true militia weapon would be the M 16 - of which has been criminalized for civilian ownership. The AR 15 is not an M 16... blah, blah, blah. You have the Hollding.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
> 
> There it is. That's all of it. Note this little part the socialists are going to go ape manure over:
> 
> ...


Thank you.
Just as I thought, that's exactly where I was pulling my arguments from.
I'm still not sure why you consistently stated that I wasn't referring to the HOLDING of the court.
Every point I made was pulled directly from those 3 sections.

Since the court "held" *"The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster."*

Why do you claim that they will be able to eventually ban all guns based on this case alone?
If using point #2 of the HOLDING, as you claim, why could the defense not also just use point #3 to refute?
It seems like Heller has a protective argument built in to prohibit the very thing you fear will happen.

That's not to claim that it won't be tried. I'm just stating that it would not be technically right to do so, given the decision in #3.
Yes, I know various cities and states are making their own arguments, but I've not specifically seen one that used Heller as the root of their argument. If they did, the defense was sorely unprepared, since the argument to refute was included in the original argument to support.

Just a point of fact, owning an M-16 is not a criminal offense. There are just other hoops to jump through that I think we all would agree violate the 2A.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Note: The link led to a bad word, but there was no bad word in the posting. Maybe a warning of language would have been appropriate to those who might access it. Penn and Teller are atheists, so I don't have a lot in common with them, but they got that Second Amendment thing down pretty good.


I assume it was their "BS" show from Showtime. That was one of their best episodes ever.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Just a point of fact, owning an M-16 is not a criminal offense. There are just other hoops to jump through that I think we all would agree violate the 2A.


As we can no longer purchase new automatic rifles, the number of rifles available for ownership are very limited and are cost prohibitive. 
While they are technically not outlawed, we can agree that the result is the same. How many Threepers would you guess own an M-16?

I'm glad the founding fathers are dead. It'd break my heart for them to see what we've done with their Experiment in Society.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I assume it was their "BS" show from Showtime. That was one of their best episodes ever.


It was an awesome clip. A shame Penn couldn't discipline his tongue a little bit.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Thank you.
> Just as I thought, that's exactly where I was pulling my arguments from.
> I'm still not sure why you consistently stated that I wasn't referring to the HOLDING of the court.
> Every point I made was pulled directly from those 3 sections.
> ...


And yet I quoted you several articles that explain to you that so called "_assault weapons_" and high capacity magazines were outlawed and the state / local officials used Heller.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-upheld-191900593.html

Do I have to cite every city, county, state and federal court statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, and cases that have cited Heller as their primary source of precedent in gun grab attempts?

Sure we can challenge it in the courts, but the outcome in the United States Supreme Court will be about as predictable as a WWE wrestling match.

NOTE: You can own a pre-ban M 16 (receivers registered before Reagan signed that law into effect.) Now, I want you to pay close attention because this is relative:

Jeff Sessions is going to outlaw bump stocks. If you own an *existing* bump stock, you have to destroy it, render it permanently inoperable, or surrender it. The *principle* here is that the *product being banned is irrelevant*. We could be talking about aluminum baseball bats. Today people own firearms that were purchased legally and later outlawed. Some people call it "_grandfathered_." The deal is, under Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from passing an *ex post facto* law. *THAT* prohibition is what protects the current fully auto weaponry. It's the reason an M16 fetches up to $30 grand in new condition. IF Sessions gets that ban without a fight, *NOTHING* saves the Second Amendment. Bans are being upheld via Heller; ex post facto protections are going down the tubes with Sessions. If you own a semi-auto, be ready to use it or lose it because the left knows they smell blood.

Addendum: The courts will define that term class of weapons


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Enough of the bickering. We are on the same side and need to act like it.
Read this and digest it.
They are killing us at the state level. Sessions isn't helping at the federal level.



The Resister said:


> And yet I quoted you several articles that explain to you that so called "_assault weapons_" and high capacity magazines were outlawed and the state / local officials used Heller.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-upheld-191900593.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

So after all the legal discussions we can all agree on one thing. The government, including judges, at the federal, State, and local level are f------ us. Got it. I need more Slippy pikes, ammo, and rope.

Our founding Fathers, as @Denton said, would truly be aghast at what we have done to their once great Republic.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Prepared One said:


> So after all the legal discussions we can all agree on one thing. The government, including judges, at the federal, State, and local level are f------ us. Got it. I need more Slippy pikes, ammo, and rope.
> 
> Our founding Fathers, as @Denton said, would truly be aghast at what we have done to their once great Republic.


Unfortunately, everyone contributed to the problem. We're all in agreement. I'm not bickering about it. I'm only telling *ONE* poster that I didn't support HIS efforts because he would not support my solutions as well. Fighting the enemies of America is not an either / or proposition. It's like gun control. Some people donate to the NRA *and* the GOA at the same time. When I'm given an opportunity to present my own opinions, I' satisfied to allow the readers to ponder over them - especially over a period of time and not draw conclusions until they have all the* facts*. That is why I *NEVER* said I gave up on a poster because they didn't listen exclusively to me. I *NEVER* started out denigrating any specific individual within the movement - only the talking points, strategies and beliefs that I know, for a* fact*, will not work. Given an equal opportunity to discuss, *NOT* bicker or argue I remain satisfied that the posters who read but don't always post have enough common sense to make up their own minds without the usual personality contests.

Yes, I *fully agree* the courts are the worst problem we have in the fight for Liberty. But, you cannot fight them toe to toe. You have to dismantle their support system. Going after their support system and fighting judicial tyranny in tandem with the weakening of their support system is the best approach.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Boy, you just can't let things go...

Since I know you'll misinterpret that, I wasn't calling you a boy. It's an expression.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

I just returned from an overnight stroll down a mountain (1350' drop in 3.2 miles) with my trusty molle 2 rucksack, spent the night by the river under a tarp in 20 degree weather, and strolled back up the mountain today. Using "bug out " equipment only.

Other than pissing in each other's post toasties, have y'all accomplished anything remotely prepperish with this thread since I've been away? Sorry, tired, TLDR.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Coastie dad said:


> I just returned from an overnight stroll down a mountain (1350' drop in 3.2 miles) with my trusty molle 2 rucksack, spent the night by the river under a tarp in 20 degree weather, and strolled back up the mountain today. Using "bug out " equipment only.
> 
> Other than pissing in each other's post toasties, have y'all accomplished anything remotely prepperish with this thread since I've been away? Sorry, tired, TLDR.


I assume you were testing your gear... how comfy was your overnight stay?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Resister said:


> Unfortunately, everyone contributed to the problem. We're all in agreement. I'm not bickering about it. I'm only telling *ONE* poster that I didn't support HIS efforts because he would not support my solutions as well. Fighting the enemies of America is not an either / or proposition. It's like gun control. Some people donate to the NRA *and* the GOA at the same time. When I'm given an opportunity to present my own opinions, I' satisfied to allow the readers to ponder over them - especially over a period of time and not draw conclusions until they have all the* facts*. That is why I *NEVER* said I gave up on a poster because they didn't listen exclusively to me. I *NEVER* started out denigrating any specific individual within the movement - only the talking points, strategies and beliefs that I know, for a* fact*, will not work. Given an equal opportunity to discuss, *NOT* bicker or argue I remain satisfied that the posters who read but don't always post have enough common sense to make up their own minds without the usual personality contests.
> 
> Yes, I *fully agree* the courts are the worst problem we have in the fight for Liberty. But, you cannot fight them toe to toe. You have to dismantle their support system. Going after their support system and fighting judicial tyranny in tandem with the weakening of their support system is the best approach.


As far as I am concerned the federal government as a whole is in breach of the Constitution. It no longer answers to the people or governs by the peoples consent. It judges and then validates it's own power and therefore is a tyrannical government.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> As far as I am concerned the federal government as a whole is in breach of the Constitution. It no longer answers to the people or governs by the peoples consent. It judges and then validates it's own power and therefore is a tyrannical government.


By and large, constitutional law has been replaced with codes and regulations that are written by the unelected in agencies the constitution didn't afford.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Coastie dad said:


> I just returned from an overnight stroll down a mountain (1350' drop in 3.2 miles) with my trusty molle 2 rucksack, spent the night by the river under a tarp in 20 degree weather, and strolled back up the mountain today. Using "bug out " equipment only.
> 
> *Other than pissing in each other's post toasties, have y'all accomplished anything remotely prepperish with this thread since I've been away? *Sorry, tired, TLDR.


Resister is perfecting his bolded word technique.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> By and large, constitutional law has been replaced with codes and regulations that are written by the unelected in agencies the constitution didn't afford.


I noticed that at least one poster wondered what we had accomplished relative to prepping with this thread. In my opinion we accomplished a lot, so you should think this over:

America is governed by at least two major factions: the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic on one hand *and* the de facto / illegal Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by multinational corporations on the other. Most of us have this instinct to be like Patrick Henry when he said that he smelled a rat. He felt so strongly about it, he refused to sign the Constitution.

We know that the legislative branch of government has become self serving. They tell us each election cycle what they believe and then, instead of working to institute their beliefs into laws, they delegate their work to regulatory agencies and remain quiet while unelected judges over-rule their legislation. At a personal level, I think politicians do this on purpose. They don't agree with you on the issues. They tell you what you want to hear, may even pass a law or make some dramatic scene over it. Yet they know the United States Supreme Court will eventually over-rule them (I believe they know because precedent and common sense tell me what the high Court will do) and our legislators are smarter than I am. They got the job. They can always tell us they did all they could do. And they can shake their fists and stomp their feet, but we know we're being played. It's obvious because legislators never openly question regulatory agencies, pseudo government agencies, and *NEVER* challenge the courts.

Once we've articulated what the problem is and can anticipate what comes next in the world of politics, we have a better idea of what it is we have to prepare *FOR*.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

hawgrider said:


> Resister is perfecting his bolded word technique.


Did you see where Kauboy called me "_boy_" and then spent a sentence explaining *why* he said it? That was his style to make his position clear. I bold certain sentences and certain words within my posts for two reasons:

1) By putting the emphasis on certain sentences and / or certain words it forces the reader to look at the point being made AND

2) Readers have a more likelihood of being able to read the point being made *only one way* when there is a possibility of several possible ways to interpret a sentence or paragraph.

That way, those who do misinterpret the point do so at the expense of being exposed as dishonest or illiterate. At the end of the day, I'm trying to get people to ask questions instead of making allegations when they fail to understand.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

StratMaster said:


> I assume you were testing your gear... how comfy was your overnight stay?


Meh..I've slept in worse conditions. Let me quote a Neanderthal friend of mine: "Fire good!"
I may post a trip report with pics if I can figure out a way to be arrogant and offensive whilst in the process of telling people they should be lucky to have me here since I'm being shadowed by clandestine government ghouls. 
As soon as I can find out how to use the bold text feature..*yup..got it I think..*


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> I noticed that at least one poster wondered what we had accomplished relative to prepping with this thread. In my opinion we accomplished a lot, so you should think this over:
> 
> America is governed by at least two major factions: the de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic on one hand *and* the de facto / illegal Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by multinational corporations on the other. Most of us have this instinct to be like Patrick Henry when he said that he smelled a rat. He felt so strongly about it, he refused to sign the Constitution.
> 
> ...


De jure and de facto. A little more than most Americans understand.
In a nutshell, how it is supposed to be, and how it is in reality.
I believe you accurately described how it is in reality.


----------



## Wryter (Jan 30, 2015)

PrepperForums said:


> Is it even possible for the Second Amendment to be repealed?
> 
> Are you concerned that this could be a possibility?
> 
> _"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_


Here is an excellent article on how some States (most notably California) are attempting an end run around the Second Amendment by taxing gun sales, ammunition, magazine rebuilders, etc. https://spectator.org/65170_end-run-around-second-amendment/


----------

