If violence develops at this rally it will not immediately escalate. There won't be running gun battles downtown.
It could however go down in history as a major step.
The revolution didn't start at the Boston Massacre (which would be the closest parallel I can think of). But it *was* a major step along the way.
If real violence starts on our side, it's going to be the people pushing this getting removed from office before their term is up.
Much as that might be gratifying to see, I think it would be a terrible step for us at this point.
No overt "hot" rebellion will occur in our lifetime. As long as people believe that they are generally well off, as long as they have food, as long as they can go to work without interference, as long a utilities continue to work, they will not be inclined to take up arms over political ideals. I just don't see it happening.Not with state police, not with the NG. They are totally unprepared and ill-equipped to cover the entire state. They are outnumbered and outclassed. They absolutely do NOT have the resources to cope with a large scale rebellion that loses containment
If you say soNo overt "hot" rebellion will occur in our lifetime. As long as people believe that they are generally well off, as long as they have food, as long as they can go to work without interference, as long a utilities continue to work, they will not be inclined to take up arms over political ideals. I just don't see it happening.
Our nation has spent a generation indoctrinating the youth about the benefits of big government and praising socialism. We now have ignorant masses that support socialism even though they don't know what it is. These masses will not rise up against their surrogate parent, the government. They will, however, be very inclined to turn against other law-abiding citizens who challenge the outright supremacy of of such a government.
I agree with that statement. The odds are better than 50/50 that there will be trouble.Nobody really knows whats going to happen. The facts are:
There are a lot of pissed off people going
The laws on thier face,are criminal, violating multiple amendments,
Opposition protestors will be there in force
Police will be there in force
Militias will be there or nearby
assholes from all sides will be there.
If I were a gambling man , Id say the odds are high that violence will break out.
They are blowing smoke from their arses.
Big cities cannot simply impose whatever draconian laws they want on the rest of the US.
I dont understand why they rally in the state capital that does not represent them. Pickup a town in your turf. Draw the line, Be noticed, be heard even if that collapses traffic or a city for a day.Well, it looks like were going to find out Who runs barter town.
I submit with respect, that some of you guys don't get it.
There are reasons why Trump, and other Republicans are doing nothing about upholding the constitution .. They can't and they know it..
Most voters WANT """common sense gun control""",, and they vote for it time and time again. The R's will not go against the majority of the voters and the mass media.
Despite what the Constitution says, the SC left it open to state interpretation.. They punted it right into the hands of politicians that thrive on societal control.. The ONLY states that will remain 2A "free" are a few conservative southern, and western states, without huge urban population zones ..
Florida and Texas are next..Florida is purple, and Texas came within a hair of electing Beto last cycle.
The Democrat leftists are winning.. Guns will be taken away state by state, to thunderous applause and smiles in state houses..
There is a picture in my head when the NY state house went totally blue, last cycle.. they instantly passed abortion on demand anytime anywhere in the state regardless of circumstance , INCLUDING killing a freshly born baby, if the mother requested it...
Its passing was celebrated right in the state house, with high five's, big smiles, handshakes, hugs, and an adoring media.. the bill that allows a newborn to be murdered as soon as it leaves the shelter of its mothers womb...
Evil is triumphing,and its doing so to smiles of approval and glad hearts in those that demanded it, from the people they voted for to enact it.. WE are the minority, and our numbers are decreasing... i am sorry to say that, but its true... bob
Not knocking what you say. All of it is true. But when has that stopped anyone? If it were followed, we wouldn't suffer arrest here for having 11 in a magazine. Just stating the obvious and not going against you. This government has gotten out of control and the majority allows it. They want it.The part you don't seem to get, is this is a fucking republic, Not a democracy. We don't lose our rights because we were out voted. That's not how it works .I don't care if the whole country went blue , We don't lose any of our rights , We never lose our rights because they are natural rights , They can be oppressed, but never taken . Now if you read the supremacy clause of the constitution Article 6 It states
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The rights of the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority! AKA - The tyranny of the majority.
Unconstitutional Official Acts16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place, Everybody knows this is going to be painted as a white power Nazi thing , and God forbid, something should go wrong after he backed it . He owns it . If some nut jobs do begin a firefight with black lives matter after he backed it , Hes fucked to a tree .Its going to be spun into a racial issue , not a constitutional issue. because who wants to support the KKK or Nazis?
The second part of this sentence is to stupidly ignorant to know better.This government has gotten out of control and the majority allows it. They want it.
The part you don't seem to get, is this is a fucking republic, Not a democracy. We don't lose our rights because we were out voted. That's not how it works .I don't care if the whole country went blue , We don't lose any of our rights , We never lose our rights because they are natural rights , They can be oppressed, but never taken . Now if you read the supremacy clause of the constitution Article 6 It states
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The rights of the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority! AKA - The tyranny of the majority.
Unconstitutional Official Acts16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place, Everybody knows this is going to be painted as a white power Nazi thing , and God forbid, something should go wrong after he backed it . He owns it . If some nut jobs do begin a firefight with black lives matter after he backed it , Hes fucked to a tree .Its going to be spun into a racial issue , not a constitutional issue. because who wants to support the KKK or Nazis?
Wrong ....you are ignorant of common use law. It is not about hunting.I commend your passion, and I share it.. You are correct of course. Self defense is God given.. The constitution doesn't give us our rights.. It GUARANTEES the government cannot take them away.
In my post I alluded to the SC. They left the matter open to interpretation as to what the word "arms" means in the 2A.. thats where the entire problem lies.
As long as you can keep a bolt action .22 or a single shot .410 your 2A rights are not being infringed in the eyes of many people. You are armed.
The state tells you what you may and may not have. The SC gave them that power.
The federal government isn't doing it, and the decision is based solely on what the voters in each state want. State after state is choosing tyranny. The masses are voting for people that hate guns, and want them out of our hands, off our hips, and gone from our pockets.
They might let you keep a bolt action to hunt, even maybe a shotgun along with it. See, you have guns.. You can defend your home, you can hunt. "Your "rights" haven't been infringed. Your hunting shotgun has a purpose. Its not a "weapon of war". Now, a semi auto is different animal. It can kill lots of people really fast, just like in a military conflict. The states one by one are deciding that a semi auto is a "weapon of war", regardless. As Cuomo once ranted on nation TV-,shortly before the SAFE ACT became law.
""You don't need 10 bullets to shoot a deer""....
To wild applause, and smiling approval of the media that carried the press conference where he said it.
Semi autos are going the way of full autos, hand grenades, AA artillery, Bazookas, Claymores, and friggin armored personal carriers..
They are "weapons of war" to way too many of our fellow citizens. The majority have spoken, and they don't want us to be armed, its really that simple. The "leaders" will not uphold the constitution, they NEVER have.. They see which way the political winds are blowing, and will not walk against it.
I am 65, and on the way out before too very long.
However I fully expect to see the day in my lifetime, actually in the near future, where I and my wife will be forced to make a decision to either hand over my guns to the state, or use them as armed thugs in full tactical , come here, to my home, to confiscate them by force.. Either way, we lose. This used to be a hell of a good country... bob
Delete
Not knocking what you say. All of it is true. But when has that stopped anyone? If it were followed, we wouldn't suffer arrest here for having 11 in a magazine. Just stating the obvious and not going against you. This government has gotten out of control and the majority allows it. They want it.
I
In my post I alluded to the SC. They left the matter open to interpretation as to what the word "arms" means in the 2A.. thats where the entire problem lies.
The state tells you what you may and may not have. The SC gave them that power.
Your hunting shotgun has a purpose. Its not a "weapon of war". Now, a semi auto is different animal. It can kill lots of people really fast, just like in a military conflict. The states one by one are deciding that a semi auto is a "weapon of war", regardless. As Cuomo once ranted on nation TV-,shortly before the SAFE ACT became law.
They are "weapons of war" to way too many of our fellow citizens. The majority have spoken, and they don't want us to be armed, its really that simple.
holdover thank you for thoroughly explaining how our system is supposed to work. I hadn't the incline to school in my post #208. Nor enough coffee. All this ways heavy on me and keeps me awake like last night. With only one cup of coffee not even spent ...... I'm still way overtired.Its their Job to interpret the law. They cant just say , You guys figure it out , its whatever you think it means. Then go on to make decisions on firearms.
The meaning and writings of the founding fathers made it clear as day as to the intent of the 2ND A. An inalienable , God given, natural right that cannot be taken away. By anyone or anything . As stated before, Any laws must be in agreement with the constitution or it isn't valid. That's not my opinion , that's the law, the way it was written. There is no requirement for the interpretation of the word , ""infringed.""We dont need men in robes to explain that.
in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing
Definition of infringe
transitive verb1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another .
Definition of INFRINGE
Does anyone need a lawyer to interpret this? Our rights are natural rights that cannot be given or taken away by the state. They can be oppressed, but never taken. What we have here in NY and Virginia is oppression , in open violation of the constitution , but not the ""law "" the laws are not consistent, and directly conflict with the constitution .It doesn't take a law degree from Harvard to discern this.
The authority is not derived from the supreme court, they interpret the law, The State derives its authority from the consent of the governed.
In the case where ""They left the matter open to interpretation as to what the word "arms" means in the 2A "" the authority doesn't then go to the state , it defaults back to the consent of the governed. Do you see consent in Virginia? or do you see the tyranny of the majority?
Then why are weapons of war being used against the citizens ?The redefining of an object, doesn't change the object. The purpose of the 2nd A was to ensure a militia could obtain weapons of war , not hunt . Bolt action rifles are weapons of war still used on the battlefield today Were as semi autos are still used, but not issued by governments, because they are seen to be less effective on the battlefield. ie: M1 Garand the SKS, The whole purpose was to kill tyrants and criminals , they are supposed to be weapons of war .
The Majority can pound fucking sand . That's not how it works. Either we follow the law or we don't . If they choose to not follow the law then theres going to be problems . its that simple. Its tyranny at gun point.