Words have meaning so I use them correctly.
Everything I said is absolutely unarguably true on the subject. Stamp your feet and throw a tantrum if you like but you can’t show anything I said to be wrong.
“The People” in the US hold the ultimate power over the gov’t.
For whatever it’s worth, i agree with you. Using the Confederate Flag is a big gift to the Left.
Now it didn’t used to be that way. When I registered Blacks to vote during Freedom Summer in 1964,
we wore this badge:
The implication was that the Confederate Flag represented ‘the South’. But, just like ‘American’ has always been more than a geographic reference (thus the 'House UnAmerican Activities Committee), the Confederate Flag even then meant more than just ‘the South’: no Black person would have flown one. It was the flag of the white Southern ethnic sub-group. But now the Left has succeeded (with help from the racists) in associating it with white supremacy. So it would be wise to drop it. It’s a tactical misatke not to.
The other side makes tactical mistakes as well. For them, it’s the burning of the American flag that is the symmetric counterpart: only some of the Left really hate America and are happy burning its flag. But when it happens, it’s a victory for us, because the average American associates flag-burning with the whole Left. Confederate flag, same same.
Then everything is cool as “the people” have spoken. Everything is exactly as it should be. We can shut the bullpen down now.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Oh I’m not leaving ya! I’m still trying to understand you. It just seems you are talking in circles. You keep saying the people hold ultimate power, but you don’t expound on how things might actually change. Of course the people hold ultimate power, were a democracy (one word shorthand for constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives which is a pain to type). But it’s how that power is manifested that is important.
In practical terms, if a law is on the books, even if you or I or even the majority consider it unconstitutional but it is enforced by the legal system and we die in jail because of it, what does it matter. It’s not until “the people” elect representatives that appoint judges that rule the law unconstitutional and prevent its further enforcement that any practical difference is achieved.
So, back to my original premise re: 2A sanctuaries - if they aren’t willing to come out and say they won’t enforce ANY law that infringes on the 2nd amendment, especially those already on the books and being enforced, can we trust them to not fold in the same way in the face of subsequent laws that, unconstitutional tho you or I or anyone else claims them to be, are enforced by the courts? I don’t think so.
I’ve explained it in words even you should be able to understand.
First we can elect senators, representatives, and presidents to push back for us.
When that fails states can without the federal gov’t being at all involved amend The US Constitution.
If that fails and enough of us decide to take up arms we have that as a final option.
The founders left us all these options knowing that sooner or later the republic would likely become so corrupted “We The People” might have to take it upon ourselves to right the wrongs.
But “the people” could go the other direction. Enough could come to the conclusion that the 2nd needs to be repealed and amend the constitution in that direction. Surely you realize that, right?
Back to the issue at hand tho. 2A sanctuaries. All 2A infringements unenforceable, or only the ones the administrators there agree with? Or only for people the administrators there like the smell of? Or what? I think it’s all a bunch of grandstanding.
They could try but since we’ve got 300 million plus firearms it’s’ not likely to work out well should they attempt to do so.
Who is we and they? What are you going to do, walk out in the street and start shooting people who, what? Don’t have the same skin color as you? Are taller than you? What? What’s the process?
Now you’re just openly trolling and have given up all pretext of attempting to have a conversation.
I’m not leading or organizing any resistance and if I was I’m not dumb enough to publicize it on the internet.
How would it probably start?
Armed protest marches and an overreaction by police or federal agents resulting in a few shots being fired.
It would then escalate rapidly from there with attacks on federal facilities.
No trolling. I really don’t understand the “final option”. The only “they” who would try to confiscate would be an armed force with the will of the people behind them.
The only way this works out in the long run for 2A supporters is a political solution. One that keeps weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens and works to keep them out of the hands of those criminal or unstable enough to use them against any law abiding citizens, especially those who are incapable of arming or choose not to arm themselves.
Of course you are or you wouldn’t have gone with the racist insults with absolutely no basis for same.
I also don’t believe you’re really as ignorant or naive as you pretend to be.
The first thing that will happen with any sort of wide spread confiscation is a complete breakdown of the military and civilian LE agencies when over half of them refuse to participate.
We take an oath to The Constitution, not to the mayor, governor, or president and those oaths actually mean something to most of us who took them.
You may not have the guts to actually put yourself at risk in a fight for any cause but there’s at least 10-30 million of us out there who have, will, and are absolutely willing to do so again if we feel our own gov’t and population have turned against us.
The whole basis for our constitution is protection of individual and minority rights.
Ok.
A - you are assuming a lot of things about me that you probably shouldn’t.
B - do you not agree that only way this works out in the long run is a political solution that keeps weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens and works to keep them out of the hands of those criminal or unstable enough to use them against any law abiding citizens? You really should. We were so close to getting suppressors out from under taxation by the NFA, then that shit-for-brains shot up the Vegas strip. Lost us bump stocks and OTC suppressors. Could red-flag laws have prevented it? Maybe. The political solution could be strengthening those types of laws in exchange for loosening others, such as the unconstitutional taxation and more importantly registration of items now regulated by the NFA.
I’m not assuming anything, you show yourself with every post.
The only political solutions being offered by democrats deal solely with infringing on the rights of the law abiding instead of focusing attention where it needs to be which is on the criminal class and those otherwise ineligible to keep and bear.
I’d have to disagree with that assessment.
Paddock had no criminal background. He did however show extremely suspicious behavior that may have allowed his girlfriend at the time to send up a flag, temporarily get weapons out of his access, and get him the help he needed to no longer be a danger to the populace.
Universal background checks are not any more of an infringement on peoples rights than current sporadic background checks and waiting periods are now. I’d gladly trade the inconveniences of UBCs for the ability fo freely convert a semi to full or make my own suppressors or swap pistol braces and shoulder stocks freely on an AR lower without fear. It would let liberal gun control people chalk up a win and if it could potentially keep dickheads like Paddock from their insanity, so much the better.
Both red-flag laws and UBC laws are being considered and I think are an area on which there could be consensus, especially if other 2A infringements could be clawed back in exchange.
What is the exact text of the 2nd Amendment.
Copy and Paste it.
What is the exact text of the 5th Amendment.
Copy and past it.
That ain’t no kinda answer and you know it.
Of course it is.
copy and paste both amendments.
No. That’s deflection. You’re scared to converse on the interpretations of current laws and find mutually beneficial political solutions to 2A issues because you are afraid it will make you look weak.
There’s no deflecting here except on your part.
Do you want to troll or do you actually want a discussion?
Post the texts of both amendments and lets discuss them in relation to your “political solutions”.
