The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

H2O says:

Quote:

Law Abiding Citizens Will Not Comply With The Law.

If you don't comply with the law you are, by the very definition of the term, NOT a law-abiding citizen. You don't get to pick and choose.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

h2Oxymoron...

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

You idiots can't even get the quote right...

H2O MAN wrote:

Law Abiding Citizens Will Not Comply.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You are wrong about that, MJ. People do get to pick and choose and they do it all the time.
Law enforcement officials also pick and choose what laws to enforce and the individuals they are going to enforce them on.
The vast majority of law enforcement agencies will not enforce any law that illegally restricts the 2nd amendment.

0 Replies

Sheriffs throughout the country will not enforce any laws or
regulations that negate the Constitutional rights of the citizens.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

ALL THE CARDS...

...and you still are terrified.

Drunk

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Get yourself a Glock, FrankA.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

f you don't comply with the law you are, by the very definition of the term, NOT a law-abiding citizen. You don't get to pick and choose.

If the federal government no longer obey the constitution then it is on it face is an illegal government with no claims on the loyalty of the American people and any officer of that government who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution is an oath breaker and a criminal him or herself that will be prosecute for his or her actions once a legal government if put back into place.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

I've got a wristwatch.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: MontereyJack (Post 5258364)
Quote:
f you don't comply with the law you are, by the very definition of the term, NOT a law-abiding citizen. You don't get to pick and choose.

If the federal government no longer obey the constitution then it is on it face is an illegal government with no claims on the loyalty of the American people and any officer of that government who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution is an oath breaker and a criminal him or herself that will be prosecute for his or her actions once a legal government if put back into place.

That, however, is not for you or any individual to decide.

The Constitution sets a procedure in order for laws to be made...and at very least infers a way for checks and balances on that process.

YOU...and the others do not get to decide on your own.

Anyone who disobeys the laws...is by definition a law breaker.

Live with it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
f you don't comply with the law you are, by the very definition of the term, NOT a law-abiding citizen. You don't get to pick and choose.

If the federal government no longer obey the constitution then it is on it face is an illegal government with no claims on the loyalty of the American people and any officer of that government who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution is an oath breaker and a criminal him or herself that will be prosecute for his or her actions once a legal government if put back into place.

Correct!

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Re: BillRM (Post 5258597)
BillRM wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
f you don't comply with the law you are, by the very definition of the term, NOT a law-abiding citizen. You don't get to pick and choose.

If the federal government no longer obey the constitution then it is on it face is an illegal government with no claims on the loyalty of the American people and any officer of that government who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution is an oath breaker and a criminal him or herself that will be prosecute for his or her actions once a legal government if put back into place.

Correct!

See...H2O agrees with you on this.

That is almost proof positive that it is wrong.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

YOU...and the others do not get to decide on your own.

Anyone who disobeys the laws...is by definition a law breaker.

Not if you win as in George Washington who was a traitor to his King and could had been hung if he was on the losing side of the conflict.

He and all the other founding fathers was law breakers of the worst kind under the then existing government.

The power of government come from the consent of the people not by the force of arms of the government agents.

The people have the right to set aside a government by force it need be and it so stated in clear terms in the Declaration of Independence.

To sum up the law breakers and those fleeing to Canada will be the supporters of the government who did not obey the constitution thanks to the fact that you can not rule a country by force and terror where it citizens are heavily arm you need their consent.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258607)
Quote:
YOU...and the others do not get to decide on your own.

Anyone who disobeys the laws...is by definition a law breaker.

Not if you win as in George Washington was a traitor to his King and could had been hung if he was on the losing side of the conflict.

He and all the other founding fathers was law breakers of the worst kind under the then existing government.

The people have the right to set aside a government by force it need be and it so stated in clear terms in the Declaration of Independence

Ahhh...the "none dare call it treason" defense.

So...you ARE preaching revolution here.

Yup...a good, law-abiding citizen who is allowed to own a gun!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ahhh...the "none dare call it treason" defense.

So...you ARE preaching revolution here.

Yup...a good, law-abiding citizen who is allowed to own a gun!

So you do not agree that the government need the consent of the governed in order to rule in any legal manner all they need to control the people is the control of the government forces?

In the case of the US we should in fact dissolve the US government and placed ourselves under the England empire as it was not legal to had revolved in the first place?

Your have a problem with the following words................

Quote:

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.

it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

So you do not agree that the government need the consent of the governed in order to rule in any legal manner all they need to control the people is the control of the government forces?

The government only needs the consent of a majority.
The majority is NOT on your side on this Bill.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258653)
Quote:
Ahhh...the "none dare call it treason" defense.

So...you ARE preaching revolution here.

Yup...a good, law-abiding citizen who is allowed to own a gun!

So you do not agree that the government need the consent of the governed in order to rule in any legal manner all they need to control the people is the control of the government forces?

I do agree that the government needs the consent of the governed in order to rule in a legal manner.

I just don't want a bunch of nut cases deciding THEY are the people who must give THEIR consent...rather than the people as a whole.

I gotta say this...when people used to use the expression "gun nut cases" or "crazies" to describe the gun rights advocates...I was bothered. I thought that was unfairly classifying people who were speaking up for what they considered "their rights"...and that the anti-gun crowd was going over-the-top by characterizing them that way. In a letter-to-the-editor exchange allowed by a terrific editor of a small local newspaper back several years, I took on several people who used that kind of language...and ended up getting some personal insults as return fire, so to speak.

But I am not so sure now. Listening to you, H2O, Oralloy...I just am not so sure anymore.

You people, as I have pointed out repeatedly, hold all the cards. The legislatures (both national and states) are not disposed to enact meaningful laws to curtain gun ownership...with most proposed legislation being little more than cosmetic nonsense and rehashing of existing laws.

Most people now acknowledge that even if passed...anything truly meaningful in the way of anything meaningful will almost certainly be blocked by the Supreme Court. And even if by a miracle...it gets through...you are arguing that most law enforcement officers will not (even cannot) enforce those laws.

So what the hell are you guys going on about for page after page after page?

You've won the fight. Stop kicking the corpse.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The government only needs the consent of a majority.
The majority is NOT on your side on this Bill.

Not under the constitution where it take a super majority to take any constitutional rights away and second by the very nature of the argument you do not have the majority of the arms citizens on your side if it come down to the government not obeying the constitution.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

When you wittiness the majority of the owners and the controllers of the mass media in the US coming together to campaign to disarm the American people with all kinds of emotional propagandas it raised justifiable concerns and is more the enough reason to counter such nonsense on the one media that is not control by a few people.

As for guns nuts I give your President Jefferson.

Quote:

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#VMo3Lj8fegCRB2wJ.99

Earliest known appearance in print: 1914 (in: John Basil Barnhill, Barnhill-Tichenor Debate on Socialism, As It Appeared in the National Rip-Saw. Saint Louis, Mo.: The National Rip-Saw Pub. Co., 1914, 34.)

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: 1994 (Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, It's All in the Game: Butterflies, Mind Control--The Razor's Edge (Phoenix Source Distributors, 1994), 214.)

Read more at: Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

2 Replies

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know