The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum Trump wins bigly...Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
One of Us |
Government overzealous power is astounding so I don’t blame those protesters at all Nothing like standing over your own kill | |||
|
| One of Us |
The use of violence because you do not like the outcome of a due and legitimate election under our constitutional system is very blameworthy. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And government using violence is just as bad Nothing like standing over your own kill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Government and the law IS the sanctioned use of violence or its threat. The government is expected to use force when our rules are violated. Whether the rules are applied or made fairly and faithfully is a different discussion. While you have the god given right to revolt, the government has the legal right to enforce its laws. Our system is intended to protect individuals from excessive government interference. We the people are supposed to collectively create the government and hold it accountable. If we elect a bunch of maroons, we get what we voted for.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
I get that but government is us and so there is that Nothing like standing over your own kill | |||
|
| One of Us |
The rules of our Constitution in electing President Biden were not violated. The matter was exhaustively challenged in the courts both state and federal. The notion was full throated rejected. No, violence is not permissible to change a due and legitimate function of government simply bc you do not like the outcome. I would argue violence is not permissible. That is why we have the courts and government to resolve. And no the Southern States had no legitimate cause to engage in rebellion or leave the Union. That was true in the 1832 and 1860. Is their a theoretical rationales? Yes, at the top of my list is a president who refuses to surrender the office of president and the executive government after losing an election or at the end of his second term. However, I believe we have sufficient instruments built into our system to remove said person legally, including arresting and trial before citizen violence. Government uses violence all the time. Every time someone is arrested is an act of violence. There was not enough violence used by government against the actors of Jan 6. No, you do mot have a good given right to revolt. At best, you may have a right to rebel against non legitimate use of government once all civil remedies are exhausted. Of course, the historical, original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to secure states against the General/Federal Government. This was not to secure the individual. I have provided the Supreme Court precedent that says that going back to 1830s. The fact some on here do not like that does not matter. The states conceded to the Constitution and the Federal/General Government. When Chief Justice Marshall wrote the people are sovereign. Specifically, he was referring to who is sovereign within the Federal Government. Everyone quotes the power to tax is the power to destroy. However, Chief Justice Marshall did not say the Federal Government could not tax to destruction. The rest of the opinion says the Federal Government can tax to destruction, but the people who are sovereign through elections would not allow it. Thus, your remedies as sovereign, or part of the sovereign, is to vote, to use the mechanism of government when the government is within its due authority. The Federal Government on Jan 6 was within its due and legitimate authority vested by the Constitution and sovereign people to transition power to President Joe Biden and the next Congress. No one had any color of right to impede that process. For a setting president to permit and sit in sympathy with those so doing is unpardonable. The fact you think government power is overzealous does not control or resolve the issue. What does is the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent that gives affect to the Constitution. You not liking it or agreeing is not a measure of truth or right. We are a nation of laws. We are not a nation of whim. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would disagree that we don't have a right to revolt... but if you do so, you need to understand that the other side will object and you will have to face the consequence of your actions, good, bad, or worse. Read the founding documents. They all stated we revolted because we felt that the government was wrong. We fought, and won. Yes, your remedies under law are to vote. As long as enough of a majority agree that the government is right, that is going to be it. As to the second amendment, I think you are off as to its intent. Self defense was thought to be part of the natural order of things. They were also clearly preserving the right of the individual man over the right of the government. Your arguments are legalistically based. That presumes that the government is a just one and thus has the moral right in the first place- because if we make an immoral unjust law and the constitutional system insists on protecting it, morally we have a right to not follow it. That's not defending the 1/6 types. I think they were wrong... but the lawyer types need to realize while the law is the absolute authority in government, it isn't the absolute authority to mankind. It is until people say it isn't. I don't think we are there yet... by a long shot... And I call BS that we are not a nation of whim. When we change laws for no real apparent reason based on the whim of the mob (aka democratic change) the law is just reflecting a whim. Occasionally, court decisions are a whim. When you have conflicting precedent, what is what decides which one the court goes with? What more can you call some of the more significant court decisions? (Say Roe v. Wade and its subsequent modification?) | |||
|
| One of Us |
And there Revolution was founded in the Sovereign not following the English Constitution which is unwritten and formed by the common law tradition. They did not simply revolt because they disliked x policy. From their point of view, the government of the King was violating common law traditions in relation to the colonist. This was equal to denying the colonists their rights under the system. I could care less on what you think about a nation of whim. For the reasons discussed above and the rule of due process we are not. | |||
|
| One of Us |
They revolted because they disliked the crown’s position that they were second class citizens. Are you saying that the various actions by the abolitionists before the emancipation proclamation were morally wrong because they were against the law of the land? As promulgated by the government and SCOTUS? Because you may have a right to revolt does not mean using that right is morally right or proper. Same thing with civil disobedience. | |||
|
| One of Us |
They revolted through the colonies agreeing that the King’s government had denied them rights guaranteed them through the English Constitution which is formulated through common law. This is not arguable. One can argue if those rights were actually denied. The fact is the revolvers framed as necessary response to a denial of English law to them as citizens. It was not framed as, “ We do not like the Stamp Tax.” It was framed as the Stamp Tax applied to us violates the common law on taxing English citizens. This is just one example. After seeking regress from the King’s government, the decision was made collectively, by the representatives of the Colonies, that the King’s government was in violation of law, refused to correct through the means of law as required by law, and rebellion was the only option. Go read the Declaration of Independence. It is a declaration of the King’s government breaking English common law as it relates to the colonies. We cannot become might makes right. Then we are fascist. That was what Jan 6 was. An attempt to set aside due and legitimate process of government under the Constitution by a few. The attempt at might makes right. An attempt to rule by whim. When government acts with due and legitimate power delegated to government, revolt, insurrection, political violence cannot be justified. Assuming, it is successful, that still does not make it legitimate nor justified. | |||
|
| One of Us |
On a whim the Republican Supreme Court decided we should be ruled by corporate money; by lying in public, under Oath, to get confirmed they overturned what they claimed was settled Law in Roe. And the Republican-controlled House is being run as a part of the Trump campaign. None of this was what the Founders had in mind. We are certainly ruled by the whims of liars. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
It is the prerogative of the Supreme Court duly vested by the Constitution and Mabury v Madison. It sure beats shooting one another. Do not vote for Republican senators and Republican presidents. Tge process was followed. I have issues w Justice Alito bc he actually mislead the Senate on the issue of Plan Parenthood v Casey during confirmation. We get what we vote for. All cases followed the appropriate process. I cannot exchange my preferences for the due exercise of constitutional authority. | |||
|
| One of Us |
John Adams Adams strongly disliked extralegal means of protest. The law must always be abided by, for the law was the best means by which to redress grievances, according to Adams. But John still opposed the Stamp Act, for it was a measure taken by Parliament which would tax the American colonists without their consent. Later that year, Adams published “The True Sentiments of America,” which discredited the rioters. But at the same time, he expounded on the idea that American rights were not “ideals still to be obtained” in the words of David McCullough, but rather “rights long and firmly established by British law and by the courage and sacrifices of generations of Americans.” “The Rights are built on a fourfold foundation -- on Nature, on the British Constitution, on Charters, and on immemorial Usage. The Navigation Act, a Capital Violation.” I would direct all to Adams’ Original Draft, 24 September 1765 to see how he anchors argument in violation Ms if English common law making up the English Constitution. You cannot revolt when the Constitution is followed with logic and support of right. Note his identification and anchor in colonist having the rights of Englishmen under British law being ignored by the King’s government through improper taxation under British law. Also, note his observations on mob violence similar to Jan 6. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Did Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett not testify under Oath that Roe was settled Law then vote to overturn it when no facts underlying it had changed? They lied, knowingly, to get confirmed so they could do just that. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
Like Sotomayor. | |||
|
Moderator |
UHm, Jeff - you know that Citizens United was settled in 2010 - and these three weren't appointed until 2017+
I agree with you that Roe should have been left alone, btw, i don't agree with your approach or tactics opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: