60 days to disarm


PDA






Rebel Gunman HK
September 12, 2003, 06:37 PM
I just read a thread about a country that has a 60 day amnesty period to surrender their guns. Simple question. What would you do? Run and hide em? Or fight? :mad:

If you enjoyed reading about "60 days to disarm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
September 12, 2003, 06:40 PM
Depends on other factors. If they're cancelling elections and shutting down newspapers, I'd say it's time to start loading magazines.

Rebel Gunman HK
September 12, 2003, 06:41 PM
If this happened in America. To you..

Rebel Gunman HK
September 12, 2003, 06:50 PM
Ive been wondering this for some ime and finally asked. I know most of you would probably like to fight for your 2nd amendment right. But how far would you take it? Is it worth YOU risking your life? Please let me know. Don't just read and wonder.

spacemanspiff
September 12, 2003, 07:00 PM
is this a trick question?

WilderBill
September 12, 2003, 07:02 PM
Let me put it this way:
If two guys, with one gun, firing only one shot at any given location at random targets can cause chaos around Washington DC, what could several hundred of us at random locations around the country do by carefully targeting those who would disarm us? :scrutiny:

Food for thought.

sm
September 12, 2003, 07:12 PM
Molon Labe

Depends on the "situation". The reality is-once one draws a breath, one day he will cease to do so. Rather be for freedom, principles, and the like...than in a cell alive--without freedom...that ain't living. I'd hate to get dead on the streets, in my home because I couldn't defend myself. Another reality is bad things happen to good people, criminals don't give up guns and weapons -they don't now, why would they change.

So I become a 'criminal" by default...I can at least defend myself...maybe enroute to the polling place, or while I try to change things-too late for change...well life happens and I still get to level the playing field.

Since I'm by my lonesome...I don't care. Just don't knock down my door un-expectedly.

TallPine
September 12, 2003, 07:33 PM
I can't tell you what I would do.

We're not supposed to discuss "illegal" activities on this board.

Stickjockey
September 12, 2003, 07:44 PM
(Sniff, sniff--) Is that Agent Schmuckatelli's aftershave I smell?;)

Baba Louie
September 12, 2003, 08:03 PM
The scenario you describe in your "What if", happened once in this country. Remember? One if by land, two if by sea?

I'd expect the exact same results. History has a way of repeating itself.

And yes, many good men died as a result of that endeavor, and I'd surmise that again, many good men would die and maybe, just maybe, Liberty's Tree would begin to grow with their/our good red blood; a Renaisannce of the values we love, that some say they swear to uphold, yet turn against time and again.

What was Santayana's exact quote about "Those who do not remember history being condemned to relive it"?

Run & Hide Em? More like clean em, kiss the wife and kids, bid them adios and find your north bridge, wouldn't you say?

Adios

editted to add: Fighting tyranny is not illegal, its expected. You and I are all part of the unorganized militia, aren't we?

cpileri
September 12, 2003, 08:19 PM
______________________________________
"(Sniff, sniff--) Is that Agent Schmuckatelli's aftershave I smell?
------------------------------------------------------------

Now I have to think of other ways to entrap you, dangit! Can't just one of you make my job easier by saying something like, 'Well if that happens i will bust out my best stuff from their underground caches and carefully target any government officials I can get to' or something similar.

If you can find it in your hearts to help me in my law enforcement efforts, then please go the extra step and post a picture of yourself with a few other like-minded friends, and include names and addresses.

For it is written: where two or more of you are gathered, there am I busting up a conspiracy!

At least that's what it says in my Bad Attitude Towards Freedom handbook.

Thank you for saving me the time, as I now have to go back a draft a new scheme.

Sincerely,
Agent Schmuckatelli

goon
September 12, 2003, 08:20 PM
I would immediately turn in all firearms in my possession.
If it is complete government control that the people want, then maybe that is what they deserve.
Actually, setting sail for a foreign country would probably seem like a good idea right about then.

Skunkabilly
September 12, 2003, 08:49 PM
Form an alliance with the space aliens! :p

berettaman
September 12, 2003, 09:21 PM
Skunkabilly:Form an alliance with the space aliens

Too late. The Govt already has.It's called the Roswell Accords.:evil:

WonderNine
September 12, 2003, 09:48 PM
I would become a criminal. I would hide my guns.

MagKnightX
September 12, 2003, 09:58 PM
Let me just dig out my old copy of the Declaration here...

originally posted by Thomas Jefferson:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necefsary for one people to difsolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to afsume among the powers of the earth, the feperate and equal ftation to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they fhould declare the caufes which impel them to the feperation.

At that point, I certainly would deem it necefsary to difsolve the political bands with the Policified States of America. So, write up a little Declaration of our own, whip it off to Washington, and, if they respect the founding principles of Our Country at all, they will let us secede. Otherwise, well, I shall not post the likely outcome.

seeker_two
September 12, 2003, 10:08 PM
Let's just say it would not be in Agent Schmuckatelli's best interest to find out...:evil:

cracked butt
September 12, 2003, 10:08 PM
Well, if such a scenario were to happen, the money I spent on my garand and the time I spent at the ranges shooting matches might not have been wasted time and money.

hansolo
September 12, 2003, 10:21 PM
I haven't yet aquired a Garand, but, if this SHTF scenario unfolded, I DO have an SKS.:cuss:

Werewolf
September 12, 2003, 10:41 PM
Actually, setting sail for a foreign country would probably seem like a good idea right about then.

And what country would you set sail for? There are none left as free as the USA.

goon
September 12, 2003, 10:56 PM
And what country would you set sail for? There are none left as free as the USA.

In theory, that is true.
But there are places where freedom is largely a matter of who you have to pay off.

El Tejon
September 12, 2003, 10:58 PM
I was a criminal in Chicago when I lived there, I would be a criminal in your proposed future.

Dave R
September 12, 2003, 11:02 PM
Who was it who said "As the USA goes, so goes freedom in the World"? I'm not willing to let freedom vanish from the world. It would likely be permanent extinction. I value diversity and economic opportunity too much to let that happen.

gryphon
September 12, 2003, 11:46 PM
As much as I would like to believe that we would allstand up and do something if it ever came to the original post scenario, I think that those who would stand up at the beginning would be few and far between and they would die horribly.

The populace at large would just sit back and let it happen, then after hundreds of years of oppression, they might fight back, maybe...

It's been a bad week, only outlook...pessimistic...

Sorry.:(

Black92LX
September 13, 2003, 12:05 AM
Is it worth YOU risking your life?

If the Constiution/Bill of Rights isn't worth dying for then i have absolutly no idea what is.

Dogsoldier
September 13, 2003, 12:22 AM
Guns...what guns?? I sold those evil offensive things off at the gunshow years ago...

:rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
September 13, 2003, 12:55 AM
Depends. First would be to attempt to use those 60 days to organize individuals I know well and who have similar tendencies. If I could do this then i could logically assume other people would be able to do this and would do it. If that is the case then we have the proto-revolutionary force established and the game is on.

If I were unable to organize/network with like-thinkers whom I trust, they being unwilling to stand and fight at that point, then I would hide my firearms and wait until things got bad enough people were forced to take action. And I'd pray that all those people who were unwilling to take a stand at first were at least willing to defy the criminals in power and do the same as I did in the beginning and were still able to arm themselves. If that failed then I suppose at some point I'd be the lone gunman you read about in the newspaper...if they allow news then.

"Stupid Armed Fool Killed By Loyal Government Troops, Safety of Nation Preserved!" :rolleyes:

geekWithA.45
September 13, 2003, 01:04 AM
are guaging the pulse of the nation.

Something I've never heard discussed on this board:

The value of the MAD principle.

Anyone remember mutual assured destruction? As long as both sides _believed_ the other would go ape???? if someone lit a nuke, neither side would actually light a nuke.

Similarly, as long as the forces of evil (and stripping the citizens of their arms is an evil act, make no mistake) believe that some significant number of us are willing to go ape???? and "vote from the rooftops", should certain lines be crossed, their actions will be.....circumspect.

And that, my friends, is the VERY PURPOSE of 2A. To keep a lid on these clowns. Certainly, they wish to be unshackled, and have a free hand, but it is literally OUR arms, the very duck guns and target pistols and {gasp} politically incorrect firearms with military pedigrees that sit in our closets that restrain them.

As for me, I am a peacable, decent, moral, and ethical human being. No JUST basis on which to demand that I should surrender my arms exists.

Therefore:

Any attempt to disarm ME, and the millions of other peacable, decent, moral, and ethical humans just like me, is UNJUST at it's very root, no matter what "laws" have been enacted to give it seeming justification.

The question very quickly becomes: "should this come to pass, despite our best efforts, should we, who are in the position to do something about it, and have the means to resist, ALLOW OURSELVES to become the victims of that, injustice, and any subsequent injustices that may then be visited upon a disarmed populace with impunity?"

That is the question that we endlessly grapple with in these threads that deal with "SHTF", "What would you do?" and "Where is the line?".

We grapple with the question precisely because we ARE moral, because we seek to be just, and because we know the value of human life, even the lives of those who seek to destroy us. (Destroy us in the sense that if we no longer keep and bear arms, we cease to be who we are: gunowners) We know that the clear cut, black and white scenario is unlikely to materialize, and we're smart enough to recognize that the method of incrementalism is designed precisely to deny us that clean, justification for taking to arms that would be easily recognizable to the public at large.



We will do our best and work to prevent that this day would ever come. We write our letters, make our contributions, join the NRA, GOA, NJCSD, vote intelligently, and excercise jury nullification.

Our best efforts may not be enough. What many people don't understand is that the system of checks and balances can break down, and the Republic CAN FAIL. It doesn't take much: an executive that oversteps his power a little, a legislature that infringes a little, a judiciary that refuses to reign them in, and a populace free only to say "We are free", as opposed to actually BEING FREE.

I'll say it again: The Republic CAN FAIL. That sort of thing has happened before. In a similar vein, entire continents can be in thrall to bad ideas and outright lies for GENERATIONS, and the cost of human suffering and lost opportunity is incalcuably IMMENSE. We came awfully close to losing it entirely in the 20th century, as Fascism swept through Europe unchecked, and as most of Asia and central Europe went insane and embraced communism. Earlier centuries had their own horror shows, as well: The Inquisition, the Burning Times, and The Dark Ages were no picnic.

As humans, we seem doomed to forever dance on the edge of disaster.

The Declaration of Independence spelled out a bold promise, and the Constitution sought to deliver on that promise and make it durable, but to make it work requires that it be implemented by Humans of Intelligence, Vision, Integrity, and Honor. Do we have such now? Humans are never perfect, but on the whole, where do they weigh in the balance?

abaddon
September 13, 2003, 01:50 AM
I've thought about this a lot and I think there is a distinction between what I call individual revolution and community revolution. As I use the terms, individual revolution is when people take the law into their own hands without the support of the people. Community revolution would be when the people as a whole decide to overthrow the government. I think the Declaration of Independence was talking about community revolution.

In order to secure these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others), governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
(not an exact quote, as it is from memory)

As you see here, "people" is used, not person. Thus, I take it that our political foundations allow for community revolution, but not necessarily individual revolution. (Technically, since this philosophy of community revolution is the basis of our law, community revolution would not even be revolution.) If the weight of the people was against the government I would engage in community revolution.

If the weight of the people was not against the government I'm not sure what I would do. At the very least I would hide my guns and hope that the people change their minds. But I'm not sure if I would engage in individual revolution. I wouldn't rule it out, there are some situations in history where it was justified (i.e. third reich), but it would depend on the situation.

Jeff

Henry Bowman
September 13, 2003, 10:29 AM
It would be time to "feed the hogs."

revlar
September 13, 2003, 10:45 AM
Since when is the defense of the Constitution an "illegal" activity?

Seems to me there's only one answer to this scenario - "Molon Labe".

telewinz
September 13, 2003, 11:26 AM
Where does it say ANY private citizen may LAWFULLY act based on their PRIVATE opinion/definition of the Constitution? I thought that was part of our system of checks and balances, the Judicial Branch of our government. If you disagree with a law, what you are saying is that its OK to do what YOU feel is right and force your values on the majority. Just what form of government (if any) do you wish to force on the majority?

anarchy:

Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Rebel Gunman HK
September 13, 2003, 11:38 AM
Thank you for taking the time to answer. The responses you gave are the ones I hoped for. I just hope there is enough of us to make sure this never happens in the first place. Until then take care and buy ammo. And make sure your friends in family know what to do with it. Looking forward to getting my CCW permit here in NM when it becomes availible next year.

Baba Louie
September 13, 2003, 02:09 PM
http://keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/liberty.asp

telewinz writes:
Just what form of government (if any) do you wish to force on the majority?

Just the one we're all supposed to live by... thats all. Not the one "The Majority" wants... When any of you have the time to read Mancus' manifesto (which is brilliant by the way), pay particular attention to Item No. 52.

Read it slowly. Re-read it again and take some notes. He, and the others who assisted him, may not be Federal Employees, and I know that rankles some here, but... it IS worth a read. Even if it isn't sworn testimony by a duly authorized federal paycheck bearer, which seems to be a standard for judgement some have locked into, that and the majority thing I read in previous posts.

The American Founding Fathers (most of whom were not federal employees at the time of the country's political makeup by the way) knew what they were doing, or at least I agree with their written words and I do tend to read them literally. I do comprehend English and having read several various legal entreaties from SCOTUS and others, wonder where they learned to write and how they comprehend such things as "The Sky is Blue" at times if their political leanings see a different shade of blue or their definition of Sky coincides or differs with the Executive Branch, Attorney General's or the general populace.

I will plainly state that SCOTUS has been wrong, as has the Executive and Legislative branches from time to time (not to mention various State Assemblies) and its our job, as citizens, to call them on it when necessary, i.e., Slavery is OK, women can't vote, suspend Habeus Corpus, prohibit men of color from bearing arms or voting, Prohibiting mfg and sales of liquor (OK That one sort of passed muster but was repealed a bit later), Infringe ownership of milita weaponry from the citizens... just a few that come to mind.

Should any of our governmental agencies actually decide on a 60 day period for total disarmament, things would get interesting, thats for certain, neh?

I, like Rebel Gunman HK, also wonder where any and everyone reading this thread would stand in such an event? (Don't ya love "what ifs"?)

Adios

telewinz
September 13, 2003, 03:03 PM
Who said we are all suppose to live by your rules. I am governed by "living" people who were legally elected. I refuse to be governed by men who have been dead for 200 years because YOU agree with SOME of their views.

My system works in that it permits all parties to be heard but does not profess to make all parties happy. The pro-guns and the anti-guns have had their say and the majority in this country seem to fairly content with our system of government.

Why do right-wingers always assume that ALL pro-gun people are also anti-government and would join the very few misfits (failures?) in armed revolution against the United States? You sir are a dreamer. I for one will defend this (inperfect) government against fools and malcontents and I do not feel I am alone in my convictions. There are loyal American citizens everywhere!

Zach S
September 13, 2003, 04:21 PM
You can read my thoughts here. (http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58046)

SodaPop
September 13, 2003, 04:38 PM
I'd go out and get a shovel for all the politicians that are about to be buried.

cpileri
September 13, 2003, 04:46 PM
I read:
"Let's just say it would not be in Agent Schmuckatelli's best interest to find out..." and the post by GeekWithA.45 and I have to say:

It sounds like you all are not yet towing the party line. Now repeat after me:
"I am willing to destroy the American Way of Life to Save it".

There, you should now feel better. You are in good company. Our own Attorney general John AshKroft (oops) is on a bandwagon tour pumping up the PATRIOTact, with a message similar to the mantra we all repeated above.

All the media reports that although he has gotten lukewarm receptions in general, he was has been wildly popular with law enforcement.

I just don't undeerstand why you can't see the good in this.
Agent S-

seeker_two
September 13, 2003, 06:39 PM
cpileri: When you read my quote, read it like you are either:

A. Blofeld talking about Agent James Bond, or...

B. The Cigarette-Smoking Man talking about Agent Mulder.

That should give you the tone of my post. :evil:

Anyone else here seeking answers....

:scrutiny:

Baba Louie
September 13, 2003, 06:48 PM
tel,

We'll have to agree to disagree here my friend.

I believe we are a nation of laws, governed as defined in the Constitution. Written by men who died 200 years ago, elected by their constituents. Stop. Change that by adding the words "supposed to be", in that I believe we are "supposed to be" a nation of laws, goverend as defined in the Constitution.

You might disagree with that as you state you are governed by "living" people who were legally elected. That's fine.

Pro-gun and anti-government? Nah. Not me. Just anti-anti-gun elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

A few quotes by "living" (well, they were when they said these) elected people:

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.
--U.S. Representative William Clay, Democrat (quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991)

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993

We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! ... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!
-- Rep. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News -- Nov. 30, 1993.

We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing & import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.
--U.S. Representative Owens, Democrat

This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.
--Craig Washington, Dem.

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren't here.
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

Only the police should have handguns.
--B.J.Clinton

I'm personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.
-- Hillary Clinton, Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times

No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.
--U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat

The only thing a rifle scope is good for is assassination.
--U.S. Senator Ira Metzenbaum, Democrat

The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.
--Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime. The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated.
-- Representative R. Owens (Democrat, NY)

I'm not advocating the overthrow of anything tel... this is a "what if" scenario for pete's sake, started by Rebel Gunman HK. Here, now, at the good old THR forum.

It is a reality in Thailand, I take it. Here and Now.

And yes sir, I am a dreamer. I see the reality of non-elected official's (within our government) actions, rread their words and sometimes, they are downright scary. That form of government can easily slide into an oligarchy as we are witnessing daily (see the above quotes) in that "They" know whats "best" for "us" in order to placate a majority of voters into keeping "them" in office a little longer.

I dream of the words of Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

I could offer a few hundred quotes by those three alone... but they're dead and no longer "elected" and would go unread anyway.

So, please lighten up while "on board", I wasn't attacking you, I was using your words to try to make a point and I guess I failed.

But what I really want to know Mr. telewinz is this... "What would YOU do if the government told you that they were confiscating all of YOUR firearms by November the 13th?" ;)

I'm trying to get back on topic.

Adios Amigo (and I mean that)

Werewolf
September 13, 2003, 07:50 PM
gryphon said The populace at large would just sit back and let it happen, then after hundreds of years of oppression, they might fight back, maybe...

I'm sad to say it but I agree.

The current crop of US Citizens are IMHO primarily SHEEP! They want to be led. They want to feel safe and secure and they expect to get that from the government. If the government demands that the sheep be disarmed so that they can feel safe and secure then the sheep will voluntarily disarm.

The few wolves amongst them will be overwhelmed by a government that will not tolerate wolves amongst the sheep and they will be eliminated in a short amount of time while the sheep look on with a dull look wondering how anyone could ever even think about taking on a government with only their safety and security in mind.

Sad - but the frontier spirit of those that built this country is almost dead.

telewinz
September 13, 2003, 08:17 PM
Most real Patriots have taken this oath, can You?

I, _____Your Name?_______________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Travis McGee
September 13, 2003, 08:23 PM
If freedom is lost in America, there will be nowhere to run to.

And any refuge where you have to pay off the local mafia to be left alone will be no better than paying off the local mafia in the USA.

oldfart
September 13, 2003, 09:39 PM
Telewinz, that oath you quote is only the most recent version. Earlier versions (like the one I took) didn't say anything about obeying the orders of the President, the officers appointed over me or the UCMJ. As a matter of fact, the UCMJ was only recently adopted when I entered the military. That verbiage seems to have been added to cover the butts of politicians and politically appointed officers within and without the military service.

On the eternal question of whether or not individual citizens should decide for themselves whether they should abide by what they consider illegal laws, let me remind everyone that the German guards who were prosecuted for 'war crimes' at the various prison camps were effectively told that it was up to them individually, to either obey or disobey their officers. If we put the shoe on our own foot, should we expect leniency from a prosecutor in the future?

We--- you, I and all the rest of us here-- have been brainwashed for most of seventy years. Some of us say things that might lead others to believe that it didn't "take" on us, but I submit that much of it has rubbed off without any of us realizing it.

For instance, if an official were consistently committing heinous acts against the citizens and getting away with it simply because of who he was and who he knew, he would need to be assassinated. But how many of us would be ready to assume the task? Instead, we'd hear about 'the justice system' or 'the law' or 'due process' or any of a dozen other tired phrases. What we'd really need is less philosophising and a man with a good rifle.

Yes, that's right, we'd need a man who was unafraid to buck the system and would rid us of a tyrant. Just like we expected those poor farm boys in German uniforms to do. Sure, our man with his rifle would probably pay with his life but the German guard would have paid that same price too. In the prison camp a few hundred Jews or Gypsies might have survived awhile longer and in our future world it might be Christians or Mormons or the members of some splinter group of Seventh Day Adventists like the Branch Davidians.

In any case, past, present or future, the final decision must be made by the individual, not the group. a bunch of individuals might band together to form a group, but they have to make their decisions separately. We've already seen this happening from time to time. A couple of years ago a sausage maker in California decided he'd fought with Big Brother long enough and when a group of bureaucrats came to close his business down they were met with gunfire. We were all told that he was a 'kook' and that what he did was 'reprehensible'. But was it, or was it just his "North Bridge"?

'A line in the sand' is a nebulous thing, suffering from vagaries of wind as it does. Perhaps we should refer to that point at which we-- as individuals-- would no longer sit idly by while our rights were trampled as our own "North Bridge".

So the real question isn't whether or not taking up arms to defend the Constitution is legal, but where is your "North Bridge"?

telewinz
September 13, 2003, 10:09 PM
Again your "illegal" orders are self-serving political beliefs not moral or religious beliefs and would not standup in a court of law IN ANY NATION. I swore to a different oath also over 30 years ago, but the intent is the same. You assume a great deal when you say myself and others of my beliefs are "brainwashed". Why? Because we disagree with right-wingers (and left-wingers) and maybe we need to be re-educated? I for one am very well read on history and do not need to be educated about YOUR "evil empire"
You miss a very important part of freedom, its called TOLERANCE. You want your freedom to be respected but ignore everyone elses. Again, our government is not perfect NO SUCH GOVERNMENT HAS EVER EXISTED! I'll take what I have and see it for what it is, one of the best FREEDOM LOVING governments in the history of man. An Anarchist will never be happy with any form of government, they hate them all.

Baba Louie
September 13, 2003, 10:54 PM
telewinz

I would have no reservations whatsoever in taking that oath sir. In that there is no disagreement.

This next line is for others lurking and perhaps new to the history scene...

I agree with John Marshall's final sentence in Marbury vs. Madison in that any laws repugnant to the Constitution are void...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.html

...scroll down to the final sentence.

However, sometimes the local citizenry do have to take the LAW into their own hands for the good of the majority, as in Athens Tenn after WWII (it was Tennessee wasn't it?) because the majority can sometimes be "sheeplike" and rightfully scared of local gov't figures. Those men who did fight back had taken the aforementioned oath and were correct in their actions (IMO). It depends on where your loyalty lies and where (as oldfart put it) your north bridge stand shall occur.

Rebel Gunman HK, it's not just about fighting for the 2nd. (Your third post in the thread I believe) Its the whole ball of wax which needs and depends on the aforementioned oath of allegiance, and its all worth fighting for.

And for the record, its far better to fight with ballots than bullets. Unless the local politicians are controlling the election boxes (on a related topic, you all might want to check out Jim March's Diebold discovery fiasco as it unfolds over in L&P), voting the elitist politicians out when you must.

I can't imagine it happening here in the US again, but from what I read Revolutions and Civil Wars can be really bad things.

Still and all, the nation survived and evolved each time. History loves the winner.
Final thoughts... Anarchists always lose. The frog in the pot will tolerate himself to death (as the saying goes).

Adios

telewinz
September 13, 2003, 11:01 PM
I received an email from a fellow member of THR. IMHO his comments show another point of view with great insight. I have deleted any names so as not to offend.

Telewinz....

I agree with what you're saying. But on the High Road Liberation Army,
you'll just be a voice in the wilderness to a bunch of wanna-be radicals
who base a political philosophy on the writings of the science fiction
author Heinlen (gee, kind of like the Scientologists base their beliefs
on the science fiction author Hubbard, hmmm? Isn't that creepy?) See, I
used to be a REAL anarchist. I put my money where my mouth is and was a
member of the Industrial Workers of the World, an anarcho-syndicalist
organization. That is how I know it is utter BS. In the IWW, we couldn't
agree on where to MEET or a T-Shirt slogan. Or what causes to support.
And we were talking about running a society??!! What a joke! When I
bring this up to folks like *****, they just say "Oh, but you weren't
OUR kind of anarchist!" You know, like how the Bolsheviks told the
Mensheviks, well, you're not OUR type of socialist. They are ALL the
same thing. They are wanna-be dictators masked in the guise of
"liberators". None of them have the actual courage of their convictions
to JOIN an anarchist cell to see what the REAL thing is REALLY about.
It's easier to sit on the net and be a big, bad anarchist without a
single freakin' dues stamp in a membership book you have to carry to
meetings to get in. What a joke they all are! They probably all work
crappy, low-paying jobs, live with their parents or share a house with a
bunch of people (like *****) and use the government as the scapegoat
for their own failures in life (like Hitler blamed the Jews.) They are
pathetic. When I tore up my red membership book in the IWW (and also the Socialist Party), I came away with the knowledge that the Far Right and
Far Left actually meet in the middle in the back. I wouldn't know that f
I hadn't been, well, a communist for all intents and purposes. You know,
I was even an organizer for the IWW. I wrote articles for the rag they
call a newsletter. So I know EXACTLY what these people say and EXACTLY
what they mean behind those words. And you know what? The things all
those High Road "anarchists" say are EXACTLY things I have heard the
Revolutionary Communist Party (a Maoist cell in the U.S.) say. What
***** REALLY means is that she'd really like shooting the people she thinks are responsible for having to live in a shared house rented from Hso's dad. And she'd like the power to do so. Yes, these are the people that create anti-gun sentiment from the fence-sitters. I recently
blasted a couple threads on "anarchy" in the legal forum and got a email
warning about it. I couldn't care less I told them. The last two ******* that emailed me quit doing so when they lost arguments they couldn't moderate, censor or squelch because it was MY email account and
THEY emailed me unsolicited. See, THEY talk about "freedom" for
THEMSELVES---BUT---(and this is important) when it comes to FREEDOM TO
DISSENT, they stop it. See, the High Road ******* call it "personal
attacks" (but notice how THEY get away with that, particularly *****)
and they email warnings to you or threaten to ban you. Just like the
Soviets called dissent "counter-revolutionary statements". See the
pattern? That's why you cannot win on High Road. They are the same as
communists, except they think they invented what Karl Marx basically
said a hundred and more years before they did. Marx espoused an anarchic
system as the actual true success of communism. So did Kropotkin. The
commune/syndicate builds and is entitled to all they produce or can
trade for other things. Sound a lot like what **** says, right? Well,
Marx said that. The difference is Marx was talking about capitalists
"stealing" the fruits of labor of the working class and ***** blames
the federal government. But the equation is the same: Ruling Class+Theft
of Labor=Oppression. There used to be signs up in every socialist
meeting hall I ever saw that said "Government is Theft!" They can say
that because they believed the socialist government was a government of
the PEOPLE (and doesn't that sound like what **** says?) Collectivism
is everywhere and the people who scream the loudest about "tyranny" ARE
the tyrants.

seeker_two
September 13, 2003, 11:25 PM
...she'd really like shooting the people she thinks are responsible for having to live in a shared house rented from Hso's dad ...

Think you forgot one, telewinz.....:o

...and I thought you pro-gov types were infallible...:rolleyes:

chaim
September 13, 2003, 11:35 PM
I'm in the "it depends on other factors" crowd. Keep in mind what you are talking about- civil war, killing fellow Americans just because they are wearing a uniform and may not understand all the issues. It wouldn't be pretty. I would look at the mood of the country as best I can tell. If it was only guns (unlikely) it is doubtful that the country would be behind us which means: 1)we'd lose, 2)we'd have absolutely no logistical support and 3)we'd possibly have to kill a lot of innocents because they would see us as terrorists and possibly turn us in or attack us themselves. If it was part of a bigger loss of civil liberties then I can see people being fed up and a better chance of success. I don't like the idea of having to kill a neighborhood cop because he is enforcing the law and doesn't necessarily understand or if it got big killing some 18 year old kid who happens to wear a National Guard uniform or Regular Army uniform (yes I know they are the same uniforms) when called to put down a rebellion. Also, if we actually had the support of many Americans then maybe some of the military and the police forces would be with us.

There really is only one area that would move me with or without support and that is if the US Gov't started killing people without due process and outside the rule of law- genocide, non-judicial killings, etc.

Now if you want to know if I'm ready if it is needed (and meets my criteria of also supported) then no I'm not. I'll never be ready to have to kill G-d only knows how many of my fellow Americans. In addition, logistically I'd feel much more comfortable with a few other gun options and more ammo. However, if it was needed I wouldn't have much choice and I do have the minimum gear and mindpower needed to do my part.

yayarx7
September 13, 2003, 11:48 PM
I, _____Your Name?_______________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I have in the past pondered the question that Rebel Gunman HK has authored here. As one who has more than once taken the oath above, and one who could be one of the "jack-booted thugs" (what the hell is a jack boot?) bashing down doors and snatching up all the registered guns, I wonder what I would do in the situation. Would I carry out my orders and quietly hide my guns? Would I rufuse my orders and probably go to jail for it? Would I martyr myself for the cause?

I know I would not turn all my guns in and gladly take up the party line, I cannot see myself doing that. I would like to think that I would stand up for my rights and probably die in honor, but cannot see myself shooting it out with my comrades in arms. But who knows?

I will take a less worrisome route and assume that I would not stand alone if it came to pass. I will assume that my fellow thinking service members would not let something like this happen. I will assume that the Law Enforcement types would refuse to carry out any gun confiscations. I will assume that as soon as such a "LAW" was passed that the people would come together and vote the fools out.

That way I can sleep at night. (with my gun under my pillow:D )

Travis McGee
September 14, 2003, 12:09 AM
Telewins
You seem unaware that soldier are only supposed to obey the LAWFUL orders of those officers appointed over them.

This was hashed out in great detail after My Lai. If LT Calley orders you to shoot the women and children, you are NOT to obey his UNLAWFUL orders. In fact, you must SHOOT LT CALLEY if that is required to protect the noncombatants.

Ditto the President or SCOTUS. If 5 clever radicals infiltrate the SCOTUS and declare that [insert minority here] may be rounded up and gassed, per the President's orders, or the Congress' laws, we are NOT obligated to click our heels like Nazis, salute, and obey.

If SCOTUS upholds a new law declaring the 2nd amd is only applicable to flintlocks, or the "militia" is today's National Guard (under federal control) then we are NOT obligated to obey their unlawful orders.

At that point, they are the DOMESTIC ENEMIES our founding fathers warned us against. We are to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, we are not to obey the unlawful orders of DOMESTIC ENEMIES of the Constitution.

SCOTUS need only uphold a ban on firearms to find out where the ultimate power in this nation exists.

Stevie-Ray
September 14, 2003, 12:19 AM
Few things are worth risking my very life for. Family, of course. But I hope they would understand that for me, the Second Amendment is another.

Molon Labe!

MagKnightX
September 14, 2003, 12:53 AM
I do not advocate overthrowing the government. I do not advocate anarchy, communism, or socialism. While I have never been an anarchist, socialist, or communist, I have known far too many to not realize that overthrowing the government is not the solution. I do not advocate marching as little more than petty thugs killing soldiers in the streets, provoking attacks from the citizenry that we say we will protect. To take up arms against the country to which you have sworn alliegance is the refuge of those who are too stupid to find other ways. There are two things that I DO advocate.

First, if laws infringing on our basic rights, ones which can NOT be taken away are put forth, we must get those who support them out of office. They do not represent us, and they have violated an oath they have made to uphold those rights. They can NOT be our representatives if they do that, as they become traitors to our country. The ninth circle of hell is reserved for them, and while I do not wish to speed them on their way there, they MUST be removed from office.

Assuming that this fails, of which there is always the possibility, I believe the only option may be secession. This is the last resort. This is what is done when our country sinks so low as to allow traitors and megalomaniacs to take away our basic rights. We should no longer allow them to do that, and whatever land we can gather together should no longer be a part of the land that the traitors corrupt.

There are risks that come with secession, and you will never hear me say that there are not. This is why it is the last resort. The government has previously proven that they will not allow secession, over 130 years ago. Whether they will simply say "Fine, leave" or whether they will decide that we cannot be allowed to leave is not up to us.

However, I do call your attention to one previous example of this. In fact, it is because of a group of men that thought that their rights were being infringed that the United States was formed.

I leave it as this.

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 07:07 AM
Why is it constantly repeated and assumed that because a person or group disagrees with a point of view it must be because they don't understand the issue, don't know its an illegal order, or they are brainwashed. You must remember that 99%+ of all American patriots are law abiding citizens, not misfits or anarchists. When does a rebel become a patriot....only AFTER (and if) they win their revolution!

It might be wise to realize that an unpopular order or an order you disagree with does NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. You are expected to assume that the order is legal unless you KNOW it to be illegal.

CRIME - A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor. NOTE: it doesn't say PERSONAL OPINION may determine what is a crime.

Uniform Code of Military Justice

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

(iii) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.

MyRoad
September 14, 2003, 09:33 AM
My prediction (if this were to happen): they don't give us 60 days, they give us 15. 60 days would allow too much time for debate and organization of opposition. Secondly, it seems that the more likely scenario is that first they ask us to register our guns, then they confiscate them.

So perhaps the first question should be; Would you register (ALL?!) of your guns if that became the 'law'?

To answer the question as posed in this thread, I don't think that out-of-the-blue there will be a call to give up our guns in some finite period of time. I think that we will see this coming, it will happen in stages, we will be fighting through the system all along, and if it were to come to pass that we were truly faced with this decision, we would have months to prepare (physically and mentally).

If Bush signs the '94 ban into law instead of letting it sunset, that would surely be a major wake-up call (again!). It's a lot easier to fight this with money -- since that's the only thing that drives decisions in our government -- than with bullets. If everyone who owns a gun gives $$$ to national gun organizations, and they work through the political system, we may be able to simply use the existing system to get the votes to go our way. Buy our freedoms? Ugly, isn't it. The alternative is better or worse?

geekWithA.45
September 14, 2003, 10:51 AM
Buy our freedoms? Ugly, isn't it.

Buying my freedom has always been philosophically repugnant to me, but as a pragmatic matter, I agree it's the way to go.

Lots of people have spent lots and lots of money on legislative and public "information campaigns" designed to show how "evil" firearms are, and to capitalize on ignorance and emotion.

In short, our opponents have paid a great deal of money to splinter our rights. We're going to have to pay money to get back that which is rightfully ours in the first place.

It disgusts me, but our choices are limited to either that, or do nothing and let everything decay to the point where the long, last walk to the gun vault is necessary.

Orbital-Burn
September 14, 2003, 11:15 AM
"you are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor. Take her away!"

Travis McGee
September 14, 2003, 12:50 PM
MyRoad:
You and I are in close agreement. In my novel, after the "Stadium Massacre" which takes place on opening day of the Redskins season, in front of dozens of Senators and Congressmen, they allow only one week to turn in all semi-auto rifles.

Forget about registration: they have a very close list any time they want it. You purchased 500 rounds of .223 or .308 or 7.62X39 with a credit card 5 years ago? They know it. Dotto that catalog order of extra 30 round mags. They have it.

In my scenario, they announce a 7 day turn in period, with a 5 year mandatory minimum for holdouts who keep their semi-autos.

Then they announce a $5,000 reward for tipsters leading to the arrest of holdouts.

Just how many people know you have a semi-auto rifle? Ever get into a pissing contest with one of them? How about an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife?

Are you willing to go to prison for 5 years if one of them drops a dime on you? A tip, plus those old credit card ammo order records, could lead to a "3AM flash-bang hello" with the JBTs smashing down your front door.

Now, I don't think such a gun ban scheme would work, even after a "super Columbine." But the fedgov might THINK it would work, and try it.

What then? Bury your guns?

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/bookcover.jpg

Travis McGee
September 14, 2003, 12:57 PM
Telewinz: So it all comes down to "obey lawful orders" and "subordinates must assume they are lawful, unless they are clearly unlawful."

Clear as mud, my friend. So if LT Calley orders you to machine gun children, what will you do?

Next case: you are a member of your state National Guard. You are activated and your unit is ordered to begin "cordon and search" ops to remove "illegal" semi-auto rifles from holdouts, who are violating a new federal law banning them. Five radical left wing members of SCOTUS have said only flintlocks are protected under the 2A.

So you are ordered to climb in the Humvee in your cammie uniform with your M-16A2, to go out with your NG company to search for and confiscate "illegal" semi auto rifles. Those are the night's orders.

Are they, to you, legal orders?

Will you obey those orders, and come to my house to confiscate my semi auto rifles?

What will you do if I refuse to open my door and permit a search, and you are ordered to open up on my house with a 50 caliber from the ring mount on your humvee?

I ask these questions in all sincerity.

Matt Bracken

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 01:03 PM
"Lots of people have spent lots and lots of money on legislative and public "information campaigns" designed to show how "evil" firearms are, and to capitalize on ignorance and emotion."

That how our whole political system has worked for the last 200 plus years. Their is no difference no matter if it's 2nd amendment rights or whether a farmer gets paid NOT to plan crops or increase his dairy herd. Thankfully the NRA is a master at this "process" and we enjoy gun benefits we do.

Travis McGee
September 14, 2003, 01:06 PM
I'm so glad you're online.

I can't wait to read your detailed and honest reply to my last quetion addressed in all seriousness to the hypotheical NG soldier Telewinz.

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 01:38 PM
Storm's coming. Molon Labe.

We know its coming. The biggest threat to this country is not really the gubmint par se', b/c we know what they're up to and they are fairly predictable. The bigger threat is the well intentioned but confused types who will profit on turning you and yours in "for the sake of the country":rolleyes:

Success = Work + Play + Keeping your mouth shut.
(Albert Einstein)

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 02:16 PM
I read his books when I was very young, "Space Cadet", "Between Planets" and "Citizen of the Galaxy". I didn't know he wrote fiction on the American system of government too.:D Did he get any Sci-Fi awards for his "government writings"?

Travis McGee: assuming this is not a trick question

"If SCOTUS upholds a new law declaring the 2nd amd is only applicable to flintlocks, or the "militia" is today's National Guard (under federal control) then we are NOT obligated to obey their unlawful orders.

At that point, they are the DOMESTIC ENEMIES our founding fathers warned us against."

You are expressing a personal opinion, not ruling on a point of law are you Judge?

The final judge of whether an order would be legal or not would be a court of law. With our (USA) current LAWS it would not be a lawful order but if the law were changed and upheld by the courts then it's legal although unpopular (like our abortion laws). BTW: how often is the NG NOT under state control?

From the UCMJ;

"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate."

Again being unpopular does not make a law illegal or immoral, if you are in the military you swore an oath to obey lawful orders, whats the problem, what don't you understand?

For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so) and donate part of my pay to the NRA to help overturn the law by peaceful means.

Did this answer your question Travis? If not, let me know.:)

BTW; What the Hell does SCOTUS mean? Is it radical right wing thought/speak (1984)? I hope this doesn't turn into another WACO debate.:uhoh:

sm
September 14, 2003, 02:42 PM
BTW; What the Hell does SCOTUS mean?

Supreme Court Of The United States

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 03:07 PM
Thanks for the explanation.

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 03:10 PM
telewinz, have you ever heard the term 'color of law'?

Have you the right to think for yourself, or must you only obey the programming?:D

slightly tongue in cheek there so don't take that too personally.;)

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 03:28 PM
Why do you insist that because I disagree with your (and others) point of view that I am NOT thinking for myself.

I have a simple question, what government that ever existed was/is "more perfect" than our current government. I will not agree that little or no government is the "more perfect" government as our founding fathers felt in their day 200 plus years ago.

Some 3rd World nations have your "perfect" government and look at how much freedom their citizens have.:barf:

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 03:35 PM
It was this statement;

For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so) and donate part of my pay to the NRA to help overturn the law by peaceful means.

Coupled with this;



The final judge of whether an order would be legal or not would be a court of law.

So I figured 2+2=4

Please correct me if my math was off. Being ordered to go kill citizens and not questioning the validity of the order and/or waiting for the courts to decide the validity of same order sounds like a killer robot. No offense.

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 03:38 PM
I have a simple question, what government that ever existed was/is "more perfect" than our current government.

The one in place in the late 1700's

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 04:03 PM
Again you ASSUME I did not question the validity of the order. Their are no significant orders I don't question (at least privately) daily, now THAT you may assume. I would not follow an illegal order but I would follow a legal one. Soldiers swear an oath to do so and accept the "mans" money in compensation.

The government in place in the late 1700's (confederation?) was little to no government and even our forefathers knew it would not work. Little to no government is what an anarchist desires and is not a reasonable/sane choice in today's World IMHO.

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 04:22 PM
Again you ASSUME I did not question the validity of the order. Their are no significant orders I don't question (at least privately) daily, now THAT you may assume. I would not follow an illegal order but I would follow a legal one.

Correct. I did assume you would not question the order based on your earlier statement;

Where does it say ANY private citizen may LAWFULLY act based on their PRIVATE opinion/definition of the Constitution?

So you made it sound like you would follow orders until told otherwise by your superiors. But by that time half your neighbrohood would be dead at your hand...Nuremburg ring any bells?



I would not follow an illegal order but I would follow a legal one.

Based on who's interpretation of illlegal? The courts? After the massacre? We ARE "We the People" and all that so when exactly does our opinions come into play as significant? Its not we the serfs, is it?

Respectfully....

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 04:54 PM
"WE the (majority) people " have chosen this form of government (a Republic) and system of justice.

"We the people" have (with due process) enpowered our present court system to interpretate the legality of our laws and Constitution. Their will always be a part of the population who is unhappy with our "system". Being unhappy with our system does not mean our system is wrong or unjust or illegal, NO government ever had 100% support from it's citizens, NONE!

Travis McGee
September 14, 2003, 06:14 PM
Telewinz:
"For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so)..."

I take it you would also obey "lawful orders" to catch runaway slaves and return them to plantations, or obey LT Calley's "lawful orders" to machine gun women and children?

Thus are laid the seeds of the next Civil War, or, more likely, Dirty War. For if the NG obeys orders to machine gun the houses of gun-owning refuseniks, then to millions of Americans, myself included, the NG will be in our eyes a "domestic enemy" of the constitution. As such, if you were in that NG, you would be a fair target, in or out of uniform, on or off duty.

Don't think the only danger to domestic enemies and traitors would issue from the barrels of barricaded refuseniks in hopeless standoffs and massacres. The greater danger would come off duty when that traitor was walking across the parking lot, in civvies, at the local Target store. THAT is what a Dirty Civil War would look like.

The constitution was not written in Latin or Greek to be interpreted for us mere peons by black-robed oracles, who may declare that up is down, or 2+2=499. It was written in plain English for plain Americans to read and understand.

If you want to stand at some point in the future with 5 black-robed domestic enemies, 5 traitors to the Constitution, that is your choice. I will choose to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, as I swore to do long ago.

And I will not bow like a "good Nazi" or a robot and agree that up is down, wrong is right, or I don't have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter what 5 black-robed commissars may declare in the future.

Remember, the greatest danger to traitors and domestic enemies of the Constitution will not come when they are in uniform, during "cordon and search" operations to confiscate "illegal" (sic) firearms. Remember it well.

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/snakelogo.jpg

telewinz
September 14, 2003, 07:55 PM
First, Lt. Calley's orders WERE ILLEGAL, has anyone ever said differently? The attempted cover-up was to protect Calley, not condone what he had done. Also you are naive if you believe that the American troops had to be "ordered" to kill, Calley just permitted it. Maybe you are not old enough to remember but their was a very intense hatred and disrespect for the Vietnamese, the sorrow in this country was mainly for Calley, not the dead villagers.

Again, we pick and chose which laws to enforce (the ones we like?). You may have taken a sworn oath to do your duty and obey legal orders yet if you disagree with the order just say its illegal and you are off the hook, Right? What if you are a pedophile (nothing personal), its OK, YOU feel it's perfectly legal because it serves your purpose to believe so. Certainly other pedophiles will agree with you and flock to support your legal defense fund to overturn that "illegal" anti-pedophile law. "Arise all free Americans, come to the defense of your fellow countrymen against our oppressive government".

I can here it now, "being a pedophile is MY natural God given right. It's as old as man himself. Some of our forefathers may have been pedophiles. NO court should make (illegal?) laws banning my god given right. And if anyone does, well watch out, we pedophiles will revolt!" Next would be the drunk drivers.

As far as pre-Civil War slavery, it was immoral (depending on your culture) not illegal. It is quite possible for a law to be legal and yet be viewed by some as immoral (our abortion laws?). Our laws have become very complex yet you would permit Joe Sixpack to pick and choose which laws to follow. Joe Sixpack isn't qualified to serve on the bench or become a member of the Bar, some aren't ever qualified to serve on a jury. You ask for mob rule, or is it just the second amendment that would enjoy your "special" license?

BHPshooter
September 14, 2003, 08:12 PM
This entire thread has me in awe. :what:

Now, I agree with what most of you are saying, but some, like telewinz, have got me really wondering what in the hell is wrong with America.

So, to prove my point, I'll give you a little bit of info:

#1 The Document: Bill of Rights (Preamble)
What it says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
What it means: It's 1791. You've just been through a 7 year war, the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the painful drafting and acceptance of the U.S. Constitution. People noticed that there was quite a bit of GRAY AREA in the Constitution -- the way you see which will decided whether you are a conservative, liberal, or a moderate (aka: indecisive dumb@$$) -- and were AFRAID that it would be open to future corruption, leading to tyranny. You just ESCAPED tyranny, so why would you go out of your way to write a governing document that would take you back? As for the "wanna-be survivalist" talk, take a look -- THESE people were afraid of government too. These people WERE NOT elected officials, they were educated, philosophical people who had opinions on which governing documents were based.

Once again the entire goal of the United States of America was to establish and preserve FREEDOM and LIBERTY; It was never about any form of security, other than the security that you get when you use your GOD-GIVEN freedoms to their intended purposes.

#2 The Document: The Bill of Rights.
What it says:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What it means: When new laws are made, or when the constitution is modified, those laws MAY NOT overturn or modify the Bill of Rights. It also means that just because something isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate right. For example: the bull???? argument that "Driving is not a right, it's a privelege -- the Constitution says nothing about having a right to drive a car," is COMPLETELY Constitutionally infirmed.

#3 The Document: The Bill of Rights.
What it says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What it means: If the Constitution doesn't say that the government can do it, THEY CAN'T DO IT. The more "grayish" areas are up to the States and the People to decide. So, with this definition, it means that IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED that a conservative outlook on the government is THE correct stance, period.

#4 The Document: The Declaration of Independence.
What it says:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What it means: That when you've finally had it, and want nothing to do with those who are denying you your very God-given rights, fine; But they ought to at least tell them why, out of respect.

#5The Document: The Declaration of Independence.
What it says:
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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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.
What it means: Gee, where to start? Even if there was no such thing as government, you would still have rights. God, or Nature, whichever you prefer, has given them to everyone. You have but to claim them.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect your rights. Not to make you safe.

When the government forgets this small fact, it's time to change. You have a right and a duty to do this. But it should not be done for frivolous reasons. Society is generally more disposed to "bear their cross" than to make a stink, but eventually the time to make a stink will come. That time is when the governmental patterns all lead to all-out slavery (that sound familiar?), and your job is to put together a new gov't.

So there's the difference between someone who knows American principles and an Anarchist -- The former will instate a form of government that will correct the reasons for revolution/rebellion/"the big stink," whereas the latter will not instate a new form of government.

:scrutiny:

And if you just plain won't respect the founding fathers, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Wes :scrutiny:

Edward429451
September 14, 2003, 10:13 PM
"We the people" have (with due process) enpowered our present court system to interpretate the legality of our laws and Constitution. Their will always be a part of the population who is unhappy with our "system". Being unhappy with our system does not mean our system is wrong or unjust or illegal, NO government ever had 100% support from it's citizens, NONE!

This is a fine example of diplomatic doublespeak, aka, PROPAGANDA.


I can here it now, "being a pedophile is MY natural God given right. It's as old as man himself. Some of our forefathers may have been pedophiles. NO court should make (illegal?) laws banning my god given right. And if anyone does, well watch out, we pedophiles will revolt!" Next would be the drunk drivers.

And this not so well written piece of lunacy indicates you're at the end of your argument.;) :D

seeker_two
September 14, 2003, 10:25 PM
For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so)....

telewinz: I believe you've made your position clear, Mr. Horiuchi...:rolleyes:

Justin
September 14, 2003, 11:13 PM
Alright.

That's enough.

If you enjoyed reading about "60 days to disarm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!