If the constitution is the supreme law of the land....!

[BADWOLF]

Badwolf,

Your sarcasm in response to a simple request to stay within the rules to which you agreed when you joined here is not appreciated.

Quotes from the Founders are fine, depending on their context. You want to talk about what DID happen, no issue. You want to talk about what might happen, questionable. You want to incite things like what did happen to happen again, especially after Paul's (and now my) warning, you can expect that it will be among your last posts here. The Founders of this country did much to obtain our freedom. They sacrificed much as well. One of my personal favorite quotes is, "Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." courtesy of Pres. John Adams.

So, sir, I ask you: What use have you made of your freedom, other than rabble-rousing on an internet website? Have you run for public office? Have you printed newsletters? Another quote from Frederick Douglass: "A man's rights rest in three boxes: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." I would humbly correct Mr. Douglass, that they also rest in the soap box and the mail box. You seem to be taking advantage of one of those; do note that the cartridge box is the last of them, not the first, nor even the second.

And in answer to the question of what ATF would do with people all standing outside, armed, during a raid... Let us look to the Whiskey Rebellion for our answer, Posse Comitatus aside, or for a more recent example, look to Waco. How many armed officers and agents would it take to decimate your neighborhood? How long would it take to declare martial law to put down a so-called rebellion?

The Supreme Court has told us that our rights are not absolute; I'm not sure that I agree with that, at least insofar as the Founders' intent, however this is the world we live in, and this is the body our esteemed Founders placed to check the power of the other two branches, which, as Hough pointed out, was actually their own doing in Marbury v. Madison.

There are plenty of places you can talk about various subjects. If the subject is "armed insurrection against the government of the United States of America", this is not one of those places.

I would really rather not sit down in my living room and talk with federal agents. I would like even less to sit down at some government building and talk with them. Don't dismiss this as hyperbole... At least one person associated with this site has caused conversations like that to take place.

Whatever you or I may think, that subject is closed on these boards.

You want to talk about how to avoid it going that far, that might be a better topic, and close enough to your original to possibly satisfy your desire to approach the subject.

Thanks for your help and cooperation.

Blessings,
Bill

Well this is probably not going to be in the same order as your post but here goes.

Sarcasam you say, you can thank my wonderful mother who bless her passed on in 2006 for that and my wonderfully dry sense of humor.

This thread was created to get people thinking of how we have lost our rights over the years & why as I stated in an earlier post the majority of Americans have become spineless & feckless when compared to the earlier generation mentioned. People sit mindlessly in their homes letting the world go by. Part of the discussion with my dad was how the later generations after WWI, WWII, KOREA,VIETNAM came home they were content they had their 2 story house, white picket fense, 2 1/2 kids a car in the drive and a dog in the back yard.... And all I can think of is " don't rock the boat " we have it good.... And my response is ( really ). Those were the generation of apathy. As long as they were comfortable the world was good, so who cares whose in office as long as the status quo was maintained and they could live conformably and their political choices that led us to where we are now show it.... I can only pray to god that future generations can look back on mine and the next few generations and see a turning point. Back to the people. I appreciate your comments in your post that is and was the purpose of this thread( start thinking people, be hypercritical of politicians and government, question authority and do something about it within your skill set that god blessed you with. If its speaking - speak, if its programming - make webpages, if its sewing - make some flags... What ever your calling use it.. To wake people up and get them thinking of what LIBERTIES we have lost as Americans from 1776 to 2016 are we Freer or more enslaved.

 

[BADWOLF]

Original intent is where the issue lies.

Read the Federalist papers they explain their original intent...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Read the Federalist papers they explain their original intent...

I have, the issue is that originally the Constitution applied only to what the federal govt could and more importantly, couldn't do. The states were under not such prohibitions, outside of their own constitutions, which typically mirrored the federal constitution. So even after incorporation, there still exists, in the minds of some, wiggle room.

 

[Double T]

Everything I want to say, could get me banned.

From watching the news, however, it appears that the USA is moving towards civil unrest at a minimum. AND the more the "us vs them" mentality is perpetuated, the closer we come to the second shot heard round the world.

 

[Kurr]

In the "shot heard round the world" era, it was "us against them". In today's modern era it would more resemble a bar room brawl in a crowded nightclub. There is just no true unity anymore.

Every group has been fractured an splintered to divide against itself.

Cant believe this thread hasn't been locked yet.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Fat and happy are hard to motivate to rebellion.

Americans are FAT AND HAPPY.

Even though they'd complain if you hung 'em with a new rope, it'll take a lot more pain than I expect we'll see in my lifetime to get 10% of the populace motivated enough to do anything.


Lots of folks will SAY they'll follow you if YOU start the fight. Dam n few actually will.

^^^All of this^^^

Heck, look how bad things are in Venezuela and even they are not fighting a civil war yet (which is pretty darn pathetic IMHO). All they are doing is victimizing each other through widespread petty criminal acts while their leaders remain unmolested.

The understanding of the Constitution as a contract/treaty under whose terms we grant pols the authority to govern, and the Bill of Rights as a list of out-of-bounds-markers on government authority rather than a list of priviledges that they might not condescend to grant us, used to be part of the school curriculum and common knowledge. But that was when there was at least a facade of the rule of law, now we have the FBI director stand up and recite a long list of criminal acts by HRC and her staff; say that in another case with similar circumstances there would be sanctions (ie do not pass GO. Go directly to jail); and then say "but that's not what we're deciding now".

our society is circling the drain. The romans had 'bread and circuses", we've got professional sports and "reality TV"

^^^Sad but true.^^^

From watching the news, however, it appears that the USA is moving towards civil unrest at a minimum. AND the more the "us vs them" mentality is perpetuated, the closer we come to the second shot heard round the world.

In the "shot heard round the world" era, it was "us against them". In today's modern era it would more resemble a bar room brawl in a crowded nightclub. There is just no true unity anymore.

Every group has been fractured an splintered to divide against itself.

Agreed that we are nearing barroom brawl style civil unrest. There will not be a nice clean "us vs. them" conflict. Just more ugliness in the form of riots, shootings, murders, and arson due to multiple factions with radically differing viewpoints and competing interests.

 

[JettaKnight]

Mods please lock this thread just on the safe side to keep it from devolving.

So you start this fray, then run home to mommy?

 

[BADWOLF]

So you start this fray, then run home to mommy?

No don't trust myself, no PC filter here.and I don't want to have to start handing out butt hurt forms...

 

[Hawkeye]

Tagged for future reading - before the lock!

 

[Expat]

Before this gets the lock, I would like to suggest something.
The Constitution say Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the courts. Why don't they just do it? Pass a law restricting the court's jurisdiction on matters of gun control.

 

[BADWOLF]

↑Good one↑

 

[BADWOLF]

Here's a post from an other thread.

Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

Federal Court Just Dealt a Major Blow to Anti-Gun Advocates in California | TheBlaze.com

EDWARD PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 10-56971

The 9th Circuit joins with the 7th Circuit in upholding this right, diverging from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Hello, Supremes! Do you hear us knocking?

Once California's state legislature passed their repeal of unloaded, unlicensed open carry, San Diego's may issue regime for concealed carry licensure became unconstitutional.

Tell me again how OCing only leads to worsening of gun control regimes, never loosening.

"Yeah, CA law ALLOWS OCing, but no one should do it because then they'll just make it illegal again."

*pttttui!* I spit on those arguments!
x10000!

Edit: I especially liked this part,"An act needn't amount to a complete destruction of the right to be forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution, since any statute that diminished or impaired the right as it existed when the constitution was formed would also be void."

WOW!!

Actually, the rest of that paragraph is AMAZING.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Before this gets the lock, I would like to suggest something.
The Constitution say Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the courts. Why don't they just do it? Pass a law restricting the court's jurisdiction on matters of gun control.

Because the Supreme Court would give it an EPIC smackdown.... meaning Congress would need numbers they DON'T have to override it. Checks and Balances, overall a good thing

 

[HoughMade]

Before this gets the lock, I would like to suggest something.
The Constitution say Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the courts. Why don't they just do it? Pass a law restricting the court's jurisdiction on matters of gun control.

That issue is an interesting one, and for many more reasons than the RKBA.

 

[Expat]

That issue is an interesting one, and for many more reasons than the RKBA.

You would think the Congress would have tried it at some point on the big issues of the day. If Republicans are so serious about abortion, like they say they are, why didn't they try it when they controlled everything?

Could they restrict the jurisdiction of the Court in the area of ruling on the Constitutionality of all laws?

After writing the above, I did some googling and found this interesting article on the subject:
Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction?

 

[Stickfight]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You make a compelling case but I still go with no.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You would think the Congress would have tried it at some point on the big issues of the day. If Republicans are so serious about abortion, like they say they are, why didn't they try it when they controlled everything?

Could they restrict the jurisdiction of the Court in the area of ruling on the Constitutionality of all laws?

After writing the above, I did some googling and found this interesting article on the subject:
Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction?

Yeah, but that was written in 2006. A lots changed since then.

 

[Tombs]

You would think the Congress would have tried it at some point on the big issues of the day. If Republicans are so serious about abortion, like they say they are, why didn't they try it when they controlled everything?

Could they restrict the jurisdiction of the Court in the area of ruling on the Constitutionality of all laws?

After writing the above, I did some googling and found this interesting article on the subject:
Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction?

Limiting jurisdiction could be a 2 way street that could prevent future successes in reclaiming lost rights. It might not be a bad idea if the presidential prospects start looking sour, like pulling the fire alarm as you see the flames beginning to rise.

Who am I kidding though, all those senators in the primary who make a big stink about the constitution bend over the second they return to the senate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IBTL

How can that be? You ARE the Libertarian.

Oh and IBTL

Oh, and IBTL.

Sorry guys, you didn't make it in before the Libertarian.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm reminded of when I used to listen to the G. Gordon Liddy Show back in the early '90s. He was big in the anti-government, Ruby Ridge, waco, out of control feds needing a smack down from the citizens thing.

...then Oklahoma City happened. He significantly dialed back his rhetoric.

Here, it only tool a friendly reminder about the forum rules.