Jump to content

Ripcannon

Revolution how when isn't talking about something like this illegal

Recommended Posts

So I've noticed more in the last 2 years people referencing a revolution but to talk about it or "plot" wouldn't that be illegal what if it was important for are nation...I'm not to keen or quick to say revolution i would never take up arms against my people all people American people...but with this socialism and the rapidly growing idea of burning the flag and wanting to change our constitution it might call for it or at least a plan so how do we have a large army size group chat without someone interfering or showing up to each and everyone involves house and slap some bogus charge on them(us)...please comment and id like the stress I'm totally against hurting any Americans even them lefters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revolutions are a dangerous thing, more often than not what you end up with at the end of it looks like the current version of Libya than the Constitutional restoration most of us desire. The reality of life in the US right now is we are already experiencing a revolution, and it ain't the kind we want and we ain't winning it. Granted most of it is what we call a "cold war" with occasional flare ups but right now it's happening in both social and conventional media constantly and with a consistent message.

The leftists are committed and engaged, spending tons of money and effort with movements like the Hogg kids stuff, Avakian's (yeah the old retead commie)  "refuse fascism"  movement, etc. etc. and they have managed to latch onto any and all allies they can get, which is why you see a lot of synergy among the LGBT, ultra-feminists, and other social issue groups. A prime example is how in the last few weeks the Socialist Rifle Association has started parroting Antifa memes and posts.

Us? Hell we can't even get people to move past their egos to form a cogent message most of the time.  F'rinstance: in almost every state there's multiple III% groups with very few working together. Hell in a lot of instances we are our own worst enemy. Example: at a second amendment rally here a few months back despite there being a good amount of folks that came across as plain "John and Jane Doe" they get the guy in overalls missing teeth waving a confederate flag in front of the camera, and that's the image that stuck in peole's heads. There are great people doing good work everyday but their story isn't getting out.

IMHO for the next couple of years we'll what we're seeing now, and it'll increase consistently. BUT if Trump pulls off a victory in 2020 expect the left side to lose what's left of their collective minds and go all in as hard as they can.

There are parts of the country that are lost. Look at how the media payed the violence from last weekend in Portland. Antifa was portrayed as the victim in most coverage and the prayer rally folks were "the antagonists". 

 

Take a gander at this read: http://coldfury.com/2018/06/03/getting-sporty/

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, sadly we as a society have been conditioned not to respond

we sit idly by & watch our nation be destroyed

200 years ago our forefathers would have been in arms over this

the problem now is that we dont respond

a civilian holding a weapon during these events if it was ever to occur is now a threat and will be nuetralized

will it be a door to door fight or will our govt use drones, tanks etc upon us

it seems there has been massive buildups of military gear to all police depts across all states

if you play chess its clear to see whats next

our problems lie in the fact how do we know who is on our side, where and how do we organize fast enough

our elected officials work for us, but over the decades this has turned, they are above us

we the silent majority need to speak out , take office etc

I seen yesterday some weirdo in cali thats running for office and wants to overturn the ruling on sex with children, sick shit right there, he needs to be  in a mental institution not in office

too many people are here for a free ride, they dont love our country, they havent spilled the blood of their loved ones for freedom

ive been saying for decades we need secure borders and to stop all immigration

Im sick of supporting illegals, I was in social security the other day fixing an issue

there was an arab woman who never worked in our nation applying for and receiving social security benefits, WTF

so ask me if we need a revolution, I say YES, not sure how it will happen but it needs to happen

trump can only do so much and has a lot more to do

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skillet said:

? Hell we can't even get people to move past their egos to form a cogent message most of the time.  F'rinstance: in almost every state there's multiple III% groups with very few working together. Hell in a lot of instances we are our own worst enemy. Example: at a second amendment rally here a few months back despite there being a good amount of folks that came across as plain "John and Jane Doe" they get the guy in overalls missing teeth waving a confederate flag in front of the camera, and that's the image that stuck in peole's heads. There are great people doing good work everyday but their story isn't getting out.

Hell yes bro every 3%er group ive came in contact works closely together (in my area pa)it's just the big militia in my state that's better then thou...I do see what you mean during the great clash of egos at the firing range we all came to the agree ment that if we argue it's grounds for having to sit out for a hour or so because we're adults and we hold ourselves to a higher standard plus we can tie up the ones who don t follow the simple rules...and yes at the 2a rallys we get a good amount of bubbas but bubbas no racist and he has a job I do agree i wish the people turning out at the rally s would be media ready i think we should keep informing the people to look a certain way to dress there best and act right at these rallys.and to have a piece of material ready if someone wants a interview.the hardest thing isn't rallying the people for the revolution it's finding people willing to talk about it to prepare it and have a end game first being all the flak that will (might) come with it (f.b.i)...thanks for the response I didn't think anyone would giving the content is edgy for even this crowd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 8:20 PM, Ripcannon said:

So I've noticed more in the last 2 years people referencing a revolution but to talk about it or "plot" wouldn't that be illegal what if it was important for are nation...I'm not to keen or quick to say revolution i would never take up arms against my people all people American people...but with this socialism and the rapidly growing idea of burning the flag and wanting to change our constitution it might call for it or at least a plan so how do we have a large army size group chat without someone interfering or showing up to each and everyone involves house and slap some bogus charge on them(us)...please comment and id like the stress I'm totally against hurting any Americans even them lefters.

 

The Founding Fathers wisely figured this into the Constitution. The only specified duty of American citizens was those of age 18 to 45 were to be in the militia. This same militia is charged with suppressing insurrections and enforcing the laws of the Union. Couple that with citizen staffed grand juries, and we have citizens with the power and authority to snuff out corruption. The solution is to get our Constitution restored, thus the power is returned to the people and taken back from corrupt government. Corrupt government also comes from lack of proper representation in Congress. The original first amendment to the Bill of Rights was never ratified, and this may be the lit fuse that blows the powder keg. There is a group out there fighting to get this done. You can do some research by looking up "BCHA" or Bring Congress Home Act.

 

In this manner, we can discuss re-birthing the citizen controlled government that America was started with. Restoring the government won't need a revolution, but there will be a huge fight once the power loving cronies in the government realize they are going to pay for their crimes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Megatron said:

I hope it all crashes and burns 

 

Dude...you are killing my positive mood here, lol. Government collapse will cause a restructuring with the might-makes-right crowd having control along with the other anti-American groups that would love to see it all crash and burn.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any one watched Kevin Costner’s “The Postman”?  I figure that is about as accurate a view of after a SHTF scenario as any and it isn’t good!  

 

(FYI, the film got bad reviews and all the experts thought it sucked but I paid 4 nights in a row to see it in the theater and then bought the VHS & later the DVD)

 

 

 

Had “today” happened back in my 30’s .. Katie bar the door! But I am 64 ... the spirit is willing for the flesh ain’t what it use to be! 

 

I have one daughter who is canning like crazy to get a stock up but without like minded people around to protect them, they are fair game for all. 

 

We we need one another. We hope and prayer it is never needed but it is better to prepare now than wish we had later! 

 

 

 

910FACE2-6C05-42B0-978F-F6D9B6789289.jpeg

B87C1F74-0460-45C3-8899-16FF62BD1309.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/4/2018 at 9:20 PM, Ripcannon said:

So I've noticed more in the last 2 years people referencing a revolution but to talk about it or "plot" wouldn't that be illegal what if it was important for are nation...I'm not to keen or quick to say revolution i would never take up arms against my people all people American people...but with this socialism and the rapidly growing idea of burning the flag and wanting to change our constitution it might call for it or at least a plan so how do we have a large army size group chat without someone interfering or showing up to each and everyone involves house and slap some bogus charge on them(us)...please comment and id like the stress I'm totally against hurting any Americans even them lefters.

Rip, I'm going to give you my .02 cents worth FWIW:

 

Legally or morally, nobody none of us should consider revolution OR any extraordinary act until we've fully exhausted all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  It's not worth posting right at the moment because people go to sleep before they finish reading what you are morally and legally required to do.

 

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on the Internet and the modern militia has been held back for most of the years it has been active because very few people want to do a think-tank approach.  Consequently, people are a by-product of their exposure to the Internet compared to having followed a structured approach to learning.  

 

If one is contemplating one of these SHTF scenarios of the government confiscating weapons, internal civil war, etc. maybe the militia statutes are not the best thing to rely on.  In the U.S. here is a synopsis of the eligibility for service in a militia:

 

"All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 246) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313)"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

 

So, if you're prior service you can be subject to fulfill militia duties until the age of 64 with prior service, but only until 45 without prior service.  The militia is only useful for a limited number of scenarios (invasion, backing up regular troops, etc.)  If you think you might have to fight the U.S. government because it turns on you, then it's gray area to contemplate using militia statutes to oppose tyranny in government.  This is where the water is murky.

 

The Second Amendment, as originally intended, was a guarantee to protect an existing Right.  The Second Amendment neither created nor granted you a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Unfortunately, the conservatives over there at the United States Supreme Court subverted the Second Amendment and now, it's not worth paper it's printed on.  Put another way, like it or not America is being run be a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional  government that bears no semblance to the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.  So, today, not only would it be illegal to even contemplate challenging a tyrannical government (which we already have) but, the United States Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the Right to the people to repel a tyrannical government.  

 

You really should watch the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson.  It's an excellent learning tool for those who want to know how to train without breaking the law.  When you watch it, think about how the Scots are honing their skills, collecting intel, building team-work skills, etc.  I'll check back in again continue this rant if you like.

Edited by The Resister
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Resister said:

Rip, I'm going to give you my .02 cents worth FWIW:

 

Legally or morally, nobody none of us should consider revolution OR any extraordinary act until we've fully exhausted all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  It's not worth posting right at the moment because people go to sleep before they finish reading what you are morally and legally required to do.

 

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation on the Internet and the modern militia has been held back for most of the years it has been active because very few people want to do a think-tank approach.  Consequently, people are a by-product of their exposure to the Internet compared to having followed a structured approach to learning.  

 

If one is contemplating one of these SHTF scenarios of the government confiscating weapons, internal civil war, etc. maybe the militia statutes are not the best thing to rely on.  In the U.S. here is a synopsis of the eligibility for service in a militia:

 

"All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 246) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313)"

 

So, if you're prior service you can be subject to fulfill militia duties until the age of 64 with prior service, but only until 45 without prior service.  The militia is only useful for a limited number of scenarios (invasion, backing up regular troops, etc.)  If you think you might have to fight the U.S. government because it turns on you, then it's gray area to contemplate using militia statutes to oppose tyranny in government.  This is where the water is murky.

 

The Second Amendment, as originally intended, was a guarantee to protect an existing Right.  The Second Amendment neither created nor granted you a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Unfortunately, the conservatives over there at the United States Supreme Court subverted the Second Amendment and now, it's not worth paper it's printed on.  Put another way, like it or not America is being run be a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional that bears no semblance to the Republic guaranteed in the Constitution.  So, today, not only would it be illegal to even contemplate challenging a tyrannical government (which we already have) the United States Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the Right to the people to repel a tyrannical government.  

 

You really should watch the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson.  It's an excellent learning tool for those who want to know how to train without breaking the law.  When you watch it, think about the Scots are honing their skills, collecting intel, building team-work skills, etc.  I'll check back in again continue this rant if you like.

Once again you killed it with word fu...I thought this was very important i keep hearing revolution and civil war im not sold on people actually understanding what that all means like the same people that want to have discussions on the 'upcoming inevitable civil war ' theres different versions of scenarios but I'm sure you heard this?I just don't think they understand war involves killing...I do think a small revolution is here and we need to capitalize on it and restore the constitution the best possible way and from some things we might say will sound extreme enough to be questioned thus turning off some key people in even helping push this issue...what's to far is it just threatening violence.?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriot is an excellent film on many levels. How to train, how you may not care for politics but you can not stay out of it. 

 

The Bill of Rights are all individual rights. The individual shall not be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms. 

 

All the Rights enumerated in the Constitution existed before the Constitution as these are God given Rights. The Constitution simply list these rights and what wasn’t covered specifically is covered under the 9th Amendment.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Megatron said:

Braveheart was about scots....

Patriot was a loose movie on the swamp fox.

 

Both movies are good.  Braveheart is beneficial in this context due to the strategies the Scots were forced to adopt in order to maintain a force that could actually repel the English tyrants.

 

Today we have all of this information, but we are not united in ideology, understanding, or in a vision for America.  From my observation there is little understanding from among the people regarding unalienable Rights and the cause of Liberty.  Most of the time I find myself arguing with people over the differences between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right.  In law, there IS a difference.

 

Unfortunately, even if we decided that enough is enough - the gun control, 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance, background checks, the unconstitutional income tax and the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the hostile environment the left has created for white people; and let's include the assaults on the family, religion, private property Rights and the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment.  We would have to consider the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the creation of Homeland (IN) Security, Obamacare along with the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench and wholesale citizenship being introduced - if you we began to list all of these (and a few more unconstitutional laws or policies) infringements and assaults on the Constitution as justification to hold the government accountable, NOBODY would sign on to defend America.  We cannot fight all of those evils separately.

 

If we were to have a revolution, it would have to be in support of holding the government for all the infringements.  But, if YOU accept an infringement and another guy accepts another infringement, then the government says well you agreed we had the power to infringe on this, so it is only common sense that we can infringe over there on another issue.  We have no idea what we're fight for.  Everybody has a different vision for America.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ripcannon said:

Once again you killed it with word fu...I thought this was very important i keep hearing revolution and civil war im not sold on people actually understanding what that all means like the same people that want to have discussions on the 'upcoming inevitable civil war ' theres different versions of scenarios but I'm sure you heard this?I just don't think they understand war involves killing...I do think a small revolution is here and we need to capitalize on it and restore the constitution the best possible way and from some things we might say will sound extreme enough to be questioned thus turning off some key people in even helping push this issue...what's to far is it just threatening violence.?

 

I don't know if I understand your post so I'm going to refer you to my post to Megatron and I'm also going to respond to the III percent guy.  Hope the elaboration helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it just needs to collapse and rebuild and let the divide happen .  I rather we live in our own small communities then one larger useless county 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2018 at 7:50 AM, VTConcernedCitizen said:

I agree, sadly we as a society have been conditioned not to respond

we sit idly by & watch our nation be destroyed

200 years ago our forefathers would have been in arms over this

the problem now is that we dont respond

a civilian holding a weapon during these events if it was ever to occur is now a threat and will be nuetralized

will it be a door to door fight or will our govt use drones, tanks etc upon us

it seems there has been massive buildups of military gear to all police depts across all states

if you play chess its clear to see whats next

our problems lie in the fact how do we know who is on our side, where and how do we organize fast enough

our elected officials work for us, but over the decades this has turned, they are above us

we the silent majority need to speak out , take office etc

I seen yesterday some weirdo in cali thats running for office and wants to overturn the ruling on sex with children, sick shit right there, he needs to be  in a mental institution not in office

too many people are here for a free ride, they dont love our country, they havent spilled the blood of their loved ones for freedom

ive been saying for decades we need secure borders and to stop all immigration

Im sick of supporting illegals, I was in social security the other day fixing an issue

there was an arab woman who never worked in our nation applying for and receiving social security benefits, WTF

so ask me if we need a revolution, I say YES, not sure how it will happen but it needs to happen

trump can only do so much and has a lot more to do

 

 

Of all the posts so far, yours is the most challenging to respond to.  In the parts I agree with you I REALLY agree with you and where we disagree, we REALLY disagree.  

 

The American people have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain buzz words and certain stimuli.  It is true of both the left and the right.  Both sides will accept unconstitutional measures provided it addresses their pet issues.  Both sides have been programmed to react with anger and they become defensive when you point out where they are wrong (from a constitutional perspective.)  The proper way one should react is to question a person about what they said, not make allegations based upon a few sentences.  AND, when you are trying to recruit people,  you can't change their mind by attacking them.  You are right with the fact that we've been programmed.  My posting here is going to be a bit long winded and I pray you will indulge me, but do you know HOW we are programmed?

 

The method is Hegelian Dialectics.  It works like this:  Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.  Let's put that into English so that everyone can understand it.  The powers that be want you to believe something AND adopt their program.  So, they create a problem (Thesis.)  Then they create the controversy and the chaos surrounding the issue (Antithesis.)  Then, the powers that be hand you a pre-planned list of solutions and they know what the obvious one is that you will pick (Synthesis.)   Few are the people who will sit down and reason with others to see where any of these "solutions" ultimately go.  

 

I'd like to give you a case in point:

 

I donated money to and provided legal research time for a lawsuit involving a fellow patriot, Sheriff Richard Mack.  At issue was whether the federal government could force local Sheriffs to enforce federal laws.  Mack said no.  Sheriff Mack said he was elected by the local people in his jurisdiction and did not work for the federal government.  He would not conduct background checks on potential gun buyers.  The case went to court.  Mack wasn't the only Sheriff defending the Second Amendment and eventually the matter went to the United States Supreme Court.  All the cases went to court rolled into one plaintiff's case.  So, it became Printz v. United States.  The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sheriffs - which was a "win" for the Second Amendment.  Here is how the Court ruled:

 

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

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

 

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."   Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

 

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

 

Johnny Cash has a song in which he says, "If a man could have half his wishes, he would just double his trouble."  For you see, we make this great constitutional argument and then the right is whizzed when the limitations of government, the Bill of Rights and a separation of powers stand in their way when the right has an issue that requires scrapping the Constitution in order to enforce.  I will explain with a news story:

 

"President Donald Trump signed an executive order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities – jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. The order has serious constitutional problems.

...Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment...."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.0b9d9a9aa689

 

And so the right would  (and does) trade in prior constitutional victories if the laws will only favor their perceived "solutions" (as if regression is a solution) and ultimately the right supports unconstitutional laws as many times as the left does.  They both end up going to the same destination via different routes.  We lack a vision of where we ultimately want to be.

Edited by The Resister
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Megatron said:

I think it just needs to collapse and rebuild and let the divide happen .  I rather we live in our own small communities then one larger useless county 

 

Don't you think now might be a good time to consider what we would replace the government with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

Of all the posts so far, yours is the most challenging to respond to.  In the parts I agree with you I REALLY agree with you and where we disagree, we REALLY disagree.  

 

The American people have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to react to certain buzz words and certain stimuli.  It is true of both the left and the right.  Both sides will accept unconstitutional measures provided it addresses their pet issues.  Both sides have been programmed to react with anger and they become defensive when you point out where they are wrong (from a constitutional perspective.)  The proper way one should react is to question a person about what they said, not make allegations based upon a few sentences.  AND, when you are trying to recruit people,  you can't change their mind by attacking them.  You are right with the fact that we've been programmed.  My posting here is going to be a bit long winded and I pray you will indulge me, but do you know HOW we are programmed?

 

The method is Hegelian Dialectics.  It works like this:  Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.  Let's put that into English so that everyone can understand it.  The powers that be want you to believe something AND adopt their program.  So, they create a problem (Thesis.)  Then they create the controversy and the chaos surrounding the issue (Antithesis.)  Then, the powers that be hand you a pre-planned list of solutions and they know what the obvious one is that you will pick (Synthesis.)   Few are the people who will sit down and reason with others to see where any of these "solutions" ultimately go.  

 

I'd like to give you a case in point:

 

I donated money to and provided legal research time for a lawsuit involving a fellow patriot, Sheriff Richard Mack.  At issue was whether the federal government could force local Sheriffs to enforce federal laws.  Mack said no.  Sheriff Mack said he was elected by the local people in his jurisdiction and did not work for the federal government.  He would not conduct background checks on potential gun buyers.  The case went to court.  Mack wasn't the only Sheriff defending the Second Amendment and eventually the matter went to the United States Supreme Court.  All the cases went to court rolled into one plaintiff's case.  So, it became Printz v. United States.  The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sheriffs - which was a "win" for the Second Amendment.  Here is how the Court ruled:

 

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

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

 

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."   Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

 

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

 

Johnny Cash has a song in which he says, "If a man could have half his wishes, he would just double his trouble."  For you see, we make this great constitutional argument and then the right is whizzed when the limitations of government, the Bill of Rights and a separation of powers stand in their way when the right has an issue that requires scrapping the Constitution in order to enforce.  I will explain with a news story:

 

"President Donald Trump signed an executive order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities – jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. The order has serious constitutional problems.

...Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment...."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.0b9d9a9aa689

 

And so the right would  (and does) trade in prior constitutional victories if the laws will only favor their perceived "solutions" (as if regression is a solution) and ultimately the right supports unconstitutional laws as many times as the left does.  They both end up going to the same destination via different routes.  We lack a vision of where we ultimately want to be.

Do you think the writers of the constitution all agreed or worked with what they could,nothing's perfect especially when talking about a revolution we will never all agree but we can make a better place for everyone even if they don't know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Resister said:

 

Don't you think now might be a good time to consider what we would replace the government with.

Just need the ron Swanson government and I am good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

Do you think the writers of the constitution all agreed or worked with what they could,nothing's perfect especially when talking about a revolution we will never all agree but we can make a better place for everyone even if they don't know it.

 

I really don't think the government can make a case for sedition or treason against me for saying this, but it is the way I feel.  Ultimately, the only way America can reclaim Liberty is to have a revolution.  We're still required to exhaust all of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress; however, once that has been done, we'd have the option (both legally and morally) to revolt.

 

There is no such thing as restoring the Constitution.  Let me show you why.  It's a lesson I hope you take seriously.

 

WHEN the Constitution was written,  it had a meaning.  When it was challenged in court, the courts interpreted the law.  It began with state rulings.  Let us look at a few of them:

 

- “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

 

- "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..”
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

 

- "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

 

Finally, the United States Supreme Court rules:

 

'The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )

 

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an inherent, unalienable, absolute Right.  It is above the government.  The Right existed before the Constitution was penned.  Now, let me demonstrate how the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed the entire Constitution:

 

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."   District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

 

Whoa.  What?  Can you see what happened?  After consistent rulings at the state and federal level, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court your Right to keep and bear Arms was ruled in the earliest decisions to be absolute,  above the law, not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.  Then, in 2008 The United States Supreme Court reverses both itself AND all the prior decisions - not to mention the intent of the founders.  The United States Supreme Court is now claiming that they grant Rights.  How do you "return" to constitutional principles given scenarios like that?

 

So you and I don't believe them.  And we'd fight to change that.  But, I believe something a lot of gun owners don't believe.  I believe that once a person has served time for a crime, been rehabilitated, and made restitution, that they retain ALL of their Rights.  So, in order to get on the same page and be willing to fight the same fight, we would have to establish principles we can agree on.  When the Federalists prevailed, they had to concede to the Anti-Federalists (who lost) and include the Bill of Rights in order to get them to sign on.  So, you, I and a substantial number of people would have to sit down, draw up a document like our forefathers did and agree under what circumstances we would pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.  We have to agree enough to all sign the same document and follow through.

 

 

 



 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Resister said:

So, you, I and a substantial number of people would have to sit down, draw up a document like our forefathers did and agree under what circumstances we would pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.  We have to agree enough to all sign the same document and follow through.

Yes brother that's what I was looking for.I'm totally with you..do you mind if I copy and paste your last post I will add the resister as the author i want to put this on a few sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    5 members have viewed this topic:
    The Resister Ripcannon Megatron Dav Harzin John Last
×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy