End Game: "It’s Time For Gun Abolition. We Need To Ban All Civilian Guns."

[Jazzhead]

Oh that is quite the other way around. Your 'community's police power' will be exposed to me... And 100m other fellers.

Fighting words.  When the time comes, you'll fold like a bleep.   

[INVAR]

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a tyranny.   

Yeah, you go think that.  Especially given the depth of tyranny that you advocate government and the courts be empowered to administer.

If you choose to ignore the laws enacted by the peoples' elective representatives, then you have chosen to be a lawbreaker and to expose yourself to the community's police power.

Since your precious government has already rendered itself lawless and corrupt - I don't give a flying fig if it considers those of us who refuse to comply with their edicts and tyrannies a 'lawbreaker'.  They have rendered themselves illegitimate with their numerous corrupt and tyrannical behaviors and I for one will ignore any infringements or attempted impositions of tyranny handed down under the color of law.

As I told you - you are going to need to arm-up your state agents with guns to go out and kill those of us who are going to refuse to comply with whatever infringements and abolishments on our rights that you think are good, right and lawful.  And you will have that war we are warning you and your kind that you are pushing for.

If the firefight you lust for then ensues,  I trust you're right about your faith walk and will join your Maker.   

Live free or die.  Something tyrants like you cannot comprehend.

Fighting words.  When the time comes, you'll fold like a bleep.   

You go think that.

[RoosGirl]

Most gun laws are in fact established at the state level.

And would you obey those laws or offer armed resistance?

Well, since I have a basic underatanding of the Founders intent of 2A, I know that it actually was intended to protect my individual RKBA from nannies and others intent on making me a subject, so any state laws that try to curb that right are unconstitutional.

[roamer_1]

Fighting words.  When the time comes, you'll fold like a bleep.

Bring it and see.

[driftdiver]

Well, since I have a basic underatanding of the Founders intent of 2A, I know that it actually was intended to protect my individual RKBA from nannies and others intent on making me a subject, so any state laws that try to curb that right are unconstitutional.

@RoosGirl
isn't it ironic how willing gun banners are to use govt force upon the people for public safety reasons.

If they had to go out door to door and collect the guns I wonder if they would be as willing to push their confiscation nonsense.

[txradioguy]

Fighting words.  When the time comes, you'll fold like a bleep.

No we won't.  We're not like you.

[RoosGirl]

Fighting words.  When the time comes, you'll fold like a bleep.

I'm brave enough to find out whether your're brave enough to personally test that hypothesis.

[edpc]

Cool....a matinee.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

The Constitution is very relevant.  But the 2A, facially, doesn't protect the individual right.  How do you explain away the predicate clause, Mr. Strict Constructionist?   

I did that on another thread, I'm not doing it again, and I'm not going to look it up for you.  It's not my fault you chose to ignore it, Mr. Judicial Supremacist.

[roamer_1]

Well, since I have a basic underatanding of the Founders intent of 2A, I know that it actually was intended to protect my individual RKBA from nannies and others intent on making me a subject, so any state laws that try to curb that right are unconstitutional.

Right... So obeying the law... You will till you won't.
I get that alright.

[SZonian]

@RoosGirl
isn't it ironic how willing gun banners are to use govt force upon the people for public safety reasons.

If they had to go out door to door and collect the guns I wonder if they would be as willing to push their confiscation nonsense.

See how well it worked in NY when they passed the "SAFE Act"?  Yeah, it didn't because the cops know better.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

[skeeter]

For Jazzy it's worse than that:  Our rights are not spelled out on parchment, it's whatever the courts say they are.  That will change daily.  I think of him as a "Judicial Supremacist."  The Constitution is irrelevant.  The Bible is irrelevant.  Statutes are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the highest Judge to rule on something has to say about it, and that only matters until it doesn't.

As for bothering with people, Jazz doesn't bother with me.  I'm no fun, I have his number.

Jazz tells us the parchment doesn't really say what it clearly does say, and that we need attorneys and judges to interpret it for us. Not really surprising given his vocation.

No sense in debating someone who will not see the truth when its right there in front of him, in black & white.

[INVAR]

Right... So obeying the law... You will till you won't.
I get that alright.

The "Law" in the Supreme Law of the Land does not apply to individual citizens - but to government and prohibits their ability to infringe on an inalienable and God-given Right.

Our Tyranny-Advocate continually states that none of our Rights are absolute - they are merely privileges that government has authority to *reasonably regulate* as they see fit.

It is the government and tyranny-advocates like our resident here who are in violation of the Law.

What garbage he advocates for and the beast at Mordor on the Potomac "passes" is simply tyranny under the color of law, and has no authority any of us have to obey.  All the Beast has is guns their agents will be asked to put to our heads to force compliance to the abolition of a right into a rescinded government privilege.

We are duty bound to defy and resist if we are governed by liberty instead of the tyranny he thinks he can get us to agree to support.

[edpc]

Jazz tells us the parchment doesn't really say what it clearly does say, and that we need attorneys and judges to interpret it for us. Not really surprising given his vocation.

I get that he’s saying without clarification, it’s subject to the whims of changing court majorities.  However, the only thing keeping it from being scrapped wholesale is the absolutists that won’t move on the issue.

[INVAR]

I get that he’s saying without clarification, it’s subject to the whims of changing court majorities.  However, the only thing keeping it from being scrapped wholesale is the absolutists that won’t move on the issue.

Correction: we 'SELFISH absolutists' and 'gun fetishists'.

Let us make sure we get his DU DNC Liberal Labels applied correctly to ourselves.

[skeeter]

I get that he’s saying without clarification, it’s subject to the whims of changing court majorities.  However, the only thing keeping it from being scrapped wholesale is the absolutists that won’t move on the issue.

Right. We have to believe that we the people can still have a role in such 'clarification'.

In essence he's telling us to stand aside and let the 'experts' handle it.

[GrouchoTex]

No we won't.  We're not like you.

Like my avatar...

[Jazzhead]

No sense in debating someone who will not see the truth when its right there in front of him, in black & white.

The predicate clause is right there, in black & white.  You can't wish it away,  any strict constructionist interpretation of the 2A's meaning has to account for the predicate clause which establishes that the CONTEXT of the right is the need to provide for the citizens' militia - not the natural right of individual self defense. 

Read it yourself.  You don't need a lawyer - the thing says what it says. 

edpc has it right:

 

  I get that he’s saying without clarification, it’s subject to the whims of changing court majorities.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  The right is fragile because it is propped up by the Heller opinion, and the left despises Heller and wants to see it overturned as soon as possible. 

edpc raises by implication another issue - are the gun rights absolutists helping or hurting?   He says they are keeping the left from successfully abrogating the natural right - but are they?  Or are they merely energizing the other side by their intransigence?     If Hillary had been elected, the Heller opinion may have already been scrapped by now.   What's needed is a Constitutional amendment, while there's still time, and still majorities in most state legislatures to ratify such an amendment.   

[roamer_1]

The "Law" in the Supreme Law of the Land does not apply to individual citizens - but to government and prohibits their ability to infringe on an inalienable and God-given Right.

Our Tyranny-Advocate continually states that none of our Rights are absolute - they are merely privileges that government has authority to *reasonably regulate* as they see fit.

I am right there with you. I am pickin up what you're laying down...
but the question was whether one would obey STATE gun laws. A nother other thing.

[GtHawk]

Cool....a matinee.

 

[txradioguy]

Like my avatar...

Exactly. The words on the Gonzales Flag come to mind all the time these days.

[edpc]

edpc raises by implication another issue - are the gun rights absolutists helping or hurting?   He says they are keeping the left from successfully abrogating the natural right - but are they?  Or are they merely energizing the other side by their intransigence?

I’ll say without hesitation I believe they are helping.  The fact they’re so stubborn about leaves no doubt in my mind there would be dozens of Wacos if the government attempted serious measures.  These wouldn’t be weird cult groups, either.  Sure, some would be kooky militia types seeing NWO people and blue helmets everywhere, but a good deal would be normal people drawing the line.

[INVAR]

I am right there with you. I am pickin up what you're laying down...
but the question was whether one would obey STATE gun laws. A nother other thing.

If the 14th is to be liberally applied as our resident Leftist continually lectures us that it does in matters of homosexual sex made acceptable and holy,  then the entirety of the Constitution and the BOR applies to the individual states the same as it does the Federal Beast.

That our rights may not be touched or infringed by government as they are construed to be bestowed upon us by God and nature's God, and therefore the courts and government of men are prohibited from infringing on them.

When they do, they are become lawless and no longer have any legitimacy we must obey or respect. To do so is just surrendering our rights 'legally' to become nothing but a state-granted privilege, regardless of whether the Feds or the States do it.

[Jazzhead]

I’ll say without hesitation I believe they are helping.  The fact they’re so stubborn about leaves no doubt in my mind there would be dozens of Wacos if the government attempted serious measures.  These wouldn’t be weird cult groups, either.  Sure, some would be kooky militia types seeing NWO people and blue helmets everywhere, but a good deal would be normal people drawing the line.

We'll soon see.  Clearly, in the recent past Dem moves to restrict gun rights have led to a backlash at the voting booth,  but 2018 is a strange, strange year.  Not only have we seen in the past year two of the absolute worst "assault rifle" massacres,  but the Trump Presidency has the libs at their wit's end.  Recent trends suggest that the Dems will be motivated as never before to resist the President who, putting aside his egotism and tweets,  is governing in a radically conservative direction,  with tax cuts,  creative regulatory reform, and absolute disdain for liberal religious tenets such as global warming. 

The President is achieving conservative results that even Reagan couldn't.   The target on his back is large,  and conservatives (who continue to bitch and squabble with one another) had better unite and quick or a reactionary tidal wave may create the conditions for a lot of destruction.   

[roamer_1]

When they do, they are become lawless and no longer have any legitimacy we must obey or respect. To do so is just surrendering our rights 'legally' to become nothing but a state-granted privilege, regardless of whether the Feds or the States do it.

Right. I'll keep the law till I don't. We're on the same page.
Though by my nature, some laws are kept more than others...