View Full Version : Assault weapons ban before US Supreme Court
Amp Mangum
10-12-15, 12:11
The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/assault-weapons-ban-us-supreme-court
Could this backfire? uhhhh
alvincullumyork
10-12-15, 14:32
Could this backfire? uhhhh
Yes and no. If the law gets struck down that's a win. If it's upheld and spreads to other states/areas we could see mass no compliance which would be a pseudo win.
I may ride a little fast and someday it may catch up and bite me in the ass but maybe not if I give it just a little more gas.
If they would just legalize freedom and decriminalize liberty; We wouldn't be in these quandaries
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-12-15, 14:41
By any kind of rational analysis this law should be toast, but when has SCOTUS been rational lately? I think the good thing here is that it is a ban and it is 10 rounds. That is pretty restrictive in both possession and mag limit. I'd be far less confident if it were NFA items and 50 round mags. Who is the lawyer on the pro freedom side? A bad one could muck this up, big time.
Mauser KAR98K
10-12-15, 14:55
Just remember, we got Heller with a 5 to 4 decision. That was one opinion from losing our rights.
Just remember, we got Heller with a 5 to 4 decision. That was one opinion from losing our rights.
That's what Im worried about. SCOTUS refused to take the CCW case from NJ last year and we are left licking our wounds. The nation got two wins with Heller and McDonald, might it be best with the current disposition of the court to leave it be? Who knows.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-12-15, 15:54
That's what Im worried about. SCOTUS refused to take the CCW case from NJ last year and we are left licking our wounds. The nation got two wins with Heller and McDonald, might it be best with the current disposition of the court to leave it be? Who knows.
You think it is going to get better???? There will never be another Scalia or Thomas on the court.
Moose-Knuckle
10-12-15, 15:55
There is no greater threat to our freedom and liberty than the activist judges that legislate from the bench in this ****'n kangaroo court.
They already defied the Constitution and made it law that We the People have to have medical insurance. They then took upon themselves to define the institution of marriage.
"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.
"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.
"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
titsonritz
10-12-15, 16:03
There is no greater threat to our freedom and liberty than the activist judges that legislate from the bench in this ****'n kangaroo court.
They already defied the Constitution and made it law that We the People have to have medical insurance. They then took upon themselves to define the institution of marriage.
Yep. This makes me nervous, it as potential to hurt us bad.
BoringGuy45
10-12-15, 16:22
The one good thing in our favor is the wording of the ruling being challenged. The appeals court made very little reference as to whether or not the Constitution allowed such a ban; the majority only stated that the ban should be upheld on the grounds that it would potentially reduce the body count in mass shootings. Essentially, they said "We don't care if this is Constitutional or not, we should ban assault weapons regardless."
Thomas, Scalia, and Alito are almost certainly going to side with us. Roberts more than likely will, though after his ruling on Obamacare, he's probably not a shoe in. Kennedy is the wild card. He's generally ruled pro-gun, but he is more of a moderate, and he might decide his support for the 2nd Amendment ends at "assault weapons."
A ruling against guns in this case could go beyond whether or not we're allowed to own semi-autos; as I said, the ruling that must be struck down also pretty much stated that the Constitution can be ignored when the government thinks it's okay to do so. This could essentially turn the Constitution from the foundation of our country to nothing more than non-binding guidelines and suggestions.
As much as I feel for our brothers and sisters behind enemy lines, I don't know if this is the right time for this case.
Prediction:
If AWBs are ruled constitutional, 1776 is here.
eightmillimeter
10-12-15, 16:36
As much as I feel for our brothers and sisters behind enemy lines, I don't know if this is the right time for this case.
There is no better time than now for a ruling on this. A win brings into question all federal regulations dating to the NFA 1934.
With recent events, I hope they decline to hear the case. More language like this is what worries me more than outright bans.
Central to the dispute is the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that, for the first time, said the Constitution’s Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense.
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said “dangerous and unusual weapons” can be restricted.
BoringGuy45
10-12-15, 16:43
There is no better time than now for a ruling on this. A win brings into question all federal regulations dating to the NFA 1934.
And a loss could start another civil war. Trust me, I left a ban state 2 years ago; these laws need to come down. But with the way the court has been lately, it's questionable whether or not they would rule correctly.
If the right person gets elected president and some of the older justices retire, more reliable replacements could be appointed. Even if that didn't happen, if we get a halfway decent president and decent makeup in Congress, there's the possibility that a bad ruling could be changed through legislation.
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said “dangerous and unusual weapons” can be restricted.
That kind of language worries me too. What is meant by "dangerous and unusual"? Does that mean weapons that are dangerous and weapons that are unusual? Or is "dangerous and unusual" a single description for certain kinds of weapons? If it's a single description, and a weapon can only be restricted if it's both dangerous and unusual, that's one thing; that would probably mean things like grenades, rocket launchers, etc. The court would look at that and say: Not many people own them, and other than revolution or foreign invasion, there's very few times when weapons like that will serve any purpose other than just blowing shit up.
If it means weapons that the government has simply decided are too "dangerous", then we could be in trouble. The saving grace to this is that every weapon is dangerous. The very definition of a weapon is a tool designed to injure or kill. The question will be how dangerous is too dangerous?
That's where the "common use" clause comes into play. Are ARs and other semi-auto rifles in common use? Yes, ARs are the most commonly owned rifle in the U.S., most police departments use them, and the military uses them. Citizens had pretty much the same small arms in their homes as the active military did in our early history. The only argument that could be used is the old "Founding Fathers never envisioned assault weapons and would never have passed the 2nd Amendment if they had..." Hopefully, "common use" will be the golden ticket.
sevenhelmet
10-12-15, 18:03
"dangerous and unusual" is an absolutely horrible way to word a law. It reminds me of "cruel and unusual" punishment. By whose definition? It leaves way too much leeway in the hands of the wrong people.
My prediction is that they will hear the case, and uphold it. Things are about to get interesting.
Laws are written the way they are for their benefit, not ours. Why do you think they are written in legalese and Latin?
No law ever made anyone more free nor has any tax made anyone more wealthy.
Unless you're the government.
Are we in the twilight zone?
Outlander Systems
10-12-15, 18:29
Twilight of Liberty?
Are we in the twilight zone?
MountainRaven
10-12-15, 18:39
There is no greater threat to our freedom and liberty than the activist judges that legislate from the bench in this ****'n kangaroo court.
They already defied the Constitution and made it law that We the People have to have medical insurance. They then took upon themselves to define the institution of marriage.
You forgot that they made money speech and redefined eminent domain from the very plain and simple text contained within the Constitution itself.
There is no better time than now for a ruling on this. A win brings into question all federal regulations dating to the NFA 1934.
This.
When would be a better time? Ten years from now, when Bernie or Hilliary have replaced two of the more conservative justices? When we have a new AWB? When the feds have banned CCW?
We have nothing to lose. The justices uphold the law as written? That's unfortunate, but it won't have any immediate impact. We win and we'll be one step closer to restoring our 2A across the country.
If the court rules against us, we continue the fight as we have and would have, had the issue never been raised before the court, in the legislature and at the ballot box.
Here's an interesting take on it...
http://bearingarms.com/supreme-court-will-refuse-hear-assault-weapons-ban-case-heres/
sevenhelmet
10-12-15, 19:40
Valid take. I'm revising my prediction in line with that article.
Yes and no. If the law gets struck down that's a win. If it's upheld and spreads to other states/areas we could see mass no compliance which would be a pseudo win.
I may ride a little fast and someday it may catch up and bite me in the ass but maybe not if I give it just a little more gas.
If it's ruled constitutional, I don't see any changes. It's assumed to be constitutional right now, confirming it won't change which states have an AWB and which don't.
Let's talk about "dangerous and unusual weapons" for a second.
In computer science and formal logic, to satisfy the condition a weapon must be both dangerous AND unusual. This is also how it would generally be interpreted on something like the LSAT.
If it was phrased "weapons that are both dangerous and unusual" or "dangerous weapons and unusual weapons", it would not have been ambiguous. However, "dangerous and unusual weapons" within a common English context can be interpreted to be either meaning.
Going to the probable origination of the term, William Blackstone's, Commentaries on the Laws of England, it seems the intent was to encompass any weapon that is dangerous or unusual.
Which is problematic, because what weapon is not dangerous? That's almost the definition of a weapon.
I seriously doubt that they'll hear the case because, to my knowledge, there aren't any appellate level decisions striking down an assault weapon ban and so there isn't really unsettled law for them to settle. If they do take the case there is NO downside for us. If we win it's a huge victory. If we lose we're in the exact same position that we are in now. Right now fear of failing judicial scrutiny has not stopped any legislature from passing an AWB and none of them have been struck down. For all practical purposes we're already living in a world which looks exactly the same as it would should we lose this. Also, we've never had such a 2nd Amendment friendly court, even if you think they suck on other issues and if you look down into the minors, it doesn't appear that a more friendly one is waiting in the wings. Also, don't forget that its generally been tradition for justices to wait to retire until a president from the same party that appointed them is in office.
BoringGuy45
10-12-15, 20:15
Valid take. I'm revising my prediction in line with that article.
+1
Eventually, the case for "assault weapons" will be heard. It has to be. But I'm with this article: It won't be heard this time.
"AWs" are the gateway to gun control. Ban AWBs and you're in business. If we get one or two new anti-2A SCOTUS Justices, we'll see an AWB.
What Drives The Left-Wing Obsession With AR-15s?
The New York Times published a story this morning entitled How They Got Their Guns, purporting to show how eight of the last 14 mass shooters obtained the firearms used in their killing sprees.
Curiously, they chose to lead the article by showing a Del-Ton AR-15 carbine that was carried, but not fired by the murderer during the Umpqua Community College attack. In a footnote to the article, the authors note:
The handguns used by C__________ H_____-M_____* are omitted because information about the models has not been made public.
The authors are claiming that it wouldn’t be fair to provide a photo of the Glock, Smith & Wesson, or Taurus handguns carried by the attacker—only the Glock was fired—because they couldn’t pin down the exact model used. Del-ton makes 17 models of rifles, but that didn’t keep the Times from arbitrarily grabbing one and using it to assert (visually) that it was the weapon used in the attack.
This follows a long and heavily-documented pattern in the mainstream media and the Democrat Party of obsessing over and against the civilian ownership of intermediate-caliber, semi-automatic carbines and rifles with detachable magazines, despite the fact that they are very rarely used in mass murders, spree killings, or any crimes at all, for that matter.
http://bearingarms.com/drives-left-wing-obsession-assault-rifles/
The Supreme Court can't make an assault weapons ban, they can only allow legislatures to do it and so far courts have done the shit out of that.
The Supreme Court can't make an assault weapons ban, they can only allow legislatures to do it and so far courts have done the shit out of that.
The SCOTUS can rule constitutional any existing local/state AWBs, thereby laying the groundwork for a Federal AWB.
The SCOTUS can rule constitutional any existing local/state AWBs, thereby laying the groundwork for a Federal AWB.
There was already a federal assault weapons ban and it was never challenged by the judiciary at all. At every level the government is already operating under the presumption that an assault weapons ban would pass judicial review.
The SCOTUS can rule constitutional any existing local/state AWBs, thereby laying the groundwork for a Federal AWB.
They're already assumed to be constitutional. Having SCOTUS say so won't magically get more anti-gun votes in Congress.
There was already a federal assault weapons ban and it was never challenged by the judiciary at all. At every level the government is already operating under the presumption that an assault weapons ban would pass judicial review.
The SCOTUS doesn't just review laws willy nilly. A challenge to a law requires plaintiffs that have legitimate claims, and it has to make its way to the SCOTUS, none of which took place as a result of the 94' AWB. Since the 94' AWB, we've had Heller and McDonald. It is naive to believe that, "At every level the government is already operating under the presumption that an assault weapons ban would pass judicial review."
They're already assumed to be constitutional. Having SCOTUS say so won't magically get more anti-gun votes in Congress.
Assuming an Illinois gun-control law is constitutional is naive.
As to more votes in The US Congress, it clearly would help some folks get off the fence.
Assuming a California gun-control law is constitutional is naive.
What does "a California gun-control law" have to do specifically with AWBs?
The SCOTUS doesn't just review laws willy nilly. A challenge to a law requires plaintiffs that have legitimate claims, and it has to make its way to the SCOTUS, none of which took place as a result of the 94' AWB. Since the 94' AWB, we've had Heller and McDonald. It is naive to believe that, "At every level the government is already operating under the presumption that an assault weapons ban would pass judicial review."
Yes, thank you, I know how it works. Seriously though, how is that naive? Where has there been an AWB ban that was just barely going to pass, but some legislator said, "you know, if this makes it to the Supreme Court I just don't think it will fly, so even though I really hate guns and they're scary and icky, I'm going to vote no"? No one is waiting around for guidance from the Supreme Court on this. Where they have the votes, they pass assault weapons bans, where they don't, they don't.
eightmillimeter
10-12-15, 21:10
You forgot that they made money speech and redefined eminent domain from the very plain and simple text contained within the Constitution itself.
This.
When would be a better time? Ten years from now, when Bernie or Hilliary have replaced two of the more conservative justices? When we have a new AWB? When the feds have banned CCW?
We have nothing to lose. The justices uphold the law as written? That's unfortunate, but it won't have any immediate impact. We win and we'll be one step closer to restoring our 2A across the country.
If the court rules against us, we continue the fight as we have and would have, had the issue never been raised before the court, in the legislature and at the ballot box.
Thank You. What most seem to be forgetting is the Illinois law in question has already been challenged and upheld in federal circuit court. That decision, if left to stand, will be cited in cases all over the country challenging local laws and ordinances if it is allowed to stand. If the USSC doesn't hear this case, we will continue to lose until something better comes along.
California has a de facto ban on Assault Weapons based upon names and features. That ban has held up in court all the way to the 9th Circuit as I recall.
What does "a California gun-control law" have to do specifically with AWBs?
California has a de facto ban on Assault Weapons based upon names and features. That ban has held up in court all the way to the 9th Circuit as I recall.
Right, and did the lack of SCOTUS confirmation of the constitutionality of their AWB stop them from passing it?
Has any appellate court ruled an AWB unconstitutional?
I am not aware of any SCOTUS ruling or appellate court ruling on the matter. People need to realize that battles are going to be at the state level the way they have done it in OR, WA, CA, MD, NY, etc...
Right, and did the lack of SCOTUS confirmation of the constitutionality of their AWB stop them from passing it?
Has any appellate court ruled an AWB unconstitutional?
I am not aware of any SCOTUS ruling or appellate court ruling on the matter. People need to realize that battles are going to be at the state level the way they have done it in OR, WA, CA, MD, NY, etc...
Well appellate courts have ruled in favor of AWBs.
You're right, the fight should be at the state level, but a SCOTUS appeal is an end run around the whole thing. There's no reason to avoid a SCOTUS ruling... either we win and strike down all AWBs or we lose and nothing changes.
I'll be shocked if they actually take the case.
Well appellate courts have ruled in favor of AWBs.
You're right, the fight should be at the state level, but a SCOTUS appeal is an end run around the whole thing. There's no reason to avoid a SCOTUS ruling... either we win and strike down all AWBs or we lose and nothing changes.
I'll be shocked if they actually take the case.
With the way this court tortures the ordinary meaning of words to get the outcome they want, we might be worse off if they do. I can totally imagine a scenario where "militia doesn't actually mean, the militia, it means something totally different that we just made up on the spot." :suicide:
The only way we can win is if the SCOTUS rules unconstitutional current AWBs on the books.
They could also rule in favor of states rights to pass the firearm laws they see fit, which may open the door to usurping federal weapons laws by states desiring to have more liberal (in the classical sense) less restrictive gun laws.
Straight Shooter
10-13-15, 10:09
The only way we can win is if the SCOTUS rules unconstitutional current AWBs on the books.
Id bet one of my Glocks that AINT gonna happen.
I doubt very much that this will have any positive effect for freedom and liberty.
And those of you saying we have nothing to lose are fooling yourselves. Those in already restricted states will very likely lose any chance at restoring the freedoms that have already been infringed and eroded. And this could open up other states to lose their freedoms as all it will take is a once conservative legislature to become a liberal progressive one and then it will be even harder to undo the damage.
What should be challenged is that ****ing unconstitutional "Sporter Clause".
brickboy240
10-13-15, 11:16
Looking back on the last few SC rulings....this could go very badly.
Amazing how some think this might end in our favor. What are these people smoking?
NOW is the time to grab your PMAG30/40s, "hi-cap" pistol mags, AK mags, etc.
Prices are LOW, but demand is rising. By fall next year, it will be panic time. The new POTUS most likely will be a DEM.
Straight Shooter
10-13-15, 12:28
NOW is the time to grab your PMAG30/40s, "hi-cap" pistol mags, AK mags, etc.
Prices are LOW, but demand is rising. By fall next year, it will be panic time. The new POTUS most likely will be a DEM.
PREACH ON.
NOW is the time to buy aluminum GI mags for future long term storage. Use your P-Mags now.
NOW is the time to buy aluminum GI mags for future long term storage. Use your P-Mags now.
PMAGS stored away from UV and high temps will last a century.
Moose-Knuckle
10-13-15, 13:43
NOW is the time to buy aluminum GI mags for future long term storage.
This has been my modus operandi since 13 September 2004.
Moose-Knuckle
10-13-15, 13:44
PMAGS stored away from UV and high temps will last a century.
If one is going to put back PMAGs I would at the least opt for the SAND material ones.
BoringGuy45
10-13-15, 13:53
Looking back on the last few SC rulings....this could go very badly.
Amazing how some think this might end in our favor. What are these people smoking?
Of course, if you look back at 2008 and 2010, almost every member of this forum was unanimous in the prediction that the SC was going to rule against the right to bear arms. Given the type of bets that people were making, there were a lot of cars, houses, guns, and both left and right testicles lost due to, thank God, this not being the case. The fact is, we gun owners tend to be pessimistic about everything under the sun. Sometimes we get pleasant surprises.
The thing we have in our favor and the reason for hope is this: Before DC v. Heller, people in DC could own shotguns and rifles so long as they were disassembled or locked. Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment did apply to individuals and not just state militias, but it also went a bit further than that. The holding could have been that while the 2nd does give us the right to bear arms, the DC ban on handguns was constitutional because the law still allowed the ownership of other kinds of weapons. But thank God, the holding was that weapons in common use were protected. It was because of that language that McDonald went the right way as well. AR-15s and other semi-autos are in very common use as well. It would be hard to uphold a ban on an entire class of weapon with this kind of language setting precedent.
My worry is that the SC would uphold the lower courts' decisions, which pretty much amounted to saying that yes, the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the right to own these weapons, but public safety trumps constitutional rights. I also don't know what kind of threats the Obama administration holds over the justices; maybe he sat down with them and casually brought up the Pelican Brief a couple times. At any rate, logic and precedent is on our side. Politics and judicial activism are a free radicals though.
Outlander Systems
10-13-15, 14:19
The NSA is a helluva drug...
I also don't know what kind of threats the Obama administration holds over the justices...
Here is our problem:
You have four justices that will absolutely, regardless of precedent or law, rule against anything we here on this forum think of as a "win". We only have two justices that would absolutely vote in a manner we would call a win. That leaves three justices that are wildcards and cannot necessarily be counted on to vote one way or the other or do something we here think that "makes sense".
I believe it would absolutely be a 5-4 vote and I would bet my house on it. Trouble is, I don't know which way that 5-4 will go.
Of course, if you look back at 2008 and 2010, almost every member of this forum was unanimous in the prediction that the SC was going to rule against the right to bear arms. Given the type of bets that people were making, there were a lot of cars, houses, guns, and both left and right testicles lost due to, thank God, this not being the case. The fact is, we gun owners tend to be pessimistic about everything under the sun. Sometimes we get pleasant surprises.
The thing we have in our favor and the reason for hope is this: Before DC v. Heller, people in DC could own shotguns and rifles so long as they were disassembled or locked. Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment did apply to individuals and not just state militias, but it also went a bit further than that. The holding could have been that while the 2nd does give us the right to bear arms, the DC ban on handguns was constitutional because the law still allowed the ownership of other kinds of weapons. But thank God, the holding was that weapons in common use were protected. It was because of that language that McDonald went the right way as well. AR-15s and other semi-autos are in very common use as well. It would be hard to uphold a ban on an entire class of weapon with this kind of language setting precedent.
My worry is that the SC would uphold the lower courts' decisions, which pretty much amounted to saying that yes, the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the right to own these weapons, but public safety trumps constitutional rights. I also don't know what kind of threats the Obama administration holds over the justices; maybe he sat down with them and casually brought up the Pelican Brief a couple times. At any rate, logic and precedent is on our side. Politics and judicial activism are a free radicals though.
IIRC that was the logic used by Rehnquist when he wrote for the majority about the ruling upholding random DUI checkpoints. Basically yeah, it was a minor intrusion into Constitutional rights but the public's safety overrode that itsy-bitsy infringement.
Even Kennedy has joined in the majority opinion in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
I have no reason to believe he wouldn't join Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas if the case is heard.
I absolutely cannot believe their knees would be buckled by the irrational fallacy of the left that assault weapons pose a greater danger than other weapons since we all know they are used in a small fraction of killings.
Has anyone heard who will be arguing the case if it is taken up by SCOTUS?
Let me say it again, banning "assault weapons" is equivalent to getting their foot into the door, allowing for more restrictions until they're all banned. After AWs, they're going after handguns, the tools with which most "gun violence" is perpetuated.
UBCs => registration => confiscation => re-education camps => labor camps => death camps.
I find this whole conversation, and the need for it, extremely frustrating.
Here is how look at it: Send the case through. If it goes our way, hey, that's great. A minuscule victory for freedom and the good guys. If we lose, we are one step closer to hitting that giant reset button that will set things right again. In some ways, I almost wish that The Obamanator and his SCOTUS cronies would all go full-extreme-retard on us. If they are far enough out of line the backlash from all walks of life against them will put a longterm end to all this non-sense that we talk about here all the time.
Lets face it. They will never stop. At what point are we all willing to get off the couch and do something about these anti-American, anti-constitutional crimes these progressives continually commit?
Even Kennedy has joined in the majority opinion in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
I have no reason to believe he wouldn't join Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas if the case is heard.
Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions, and I can absolutely see Kennedy deciding that possession of so called "assault weapons" as being not constitutionally protected.
Business_Casual
10-14-15, 05:42
I don't see how the court has sent any signals that "reasonable" restrictions aren't allowed - go try to get a gun in DC after Heller. Good luck.
The absolute right exists in their minds, but if you are limited to a 5-shot Ladysmith instead of a Street Sweeper doesn't even make their radar.
BoringGuy45
10-14-15, 08:42
Part of Scalia's majority opinion in Heller: "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."
This is a strong hint that the AWB is already on shaky ground with this current Supreme Court. While Kennedy is a wild card in all kinds of rulings, he agreed with this majority opinion and thus, would have to go against his own precedent to side with the liberal wing.
But as we know, anything goes these days.
The amicus briefs are firing for (pun intended) the "ubiquitous" and "common-place" language. Because the AR-style rifles are so common, by definition they are not uncommon. Additionally the volume of sales of these types of guns are so high they cannot be seen as outside the norm.
Even Kennedy has joined in the majority opinion in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
I have no reason to believe he wouldn't join Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas if the case is heard.
I absolutely cannot believe their knees would be buckled by the irrational fallacy of the left that assault weapons pose a greater danger than other weapons since we all know they are used in a small fraction of killings.
****ing Roberts is the one I worry about these days on most things, not Kennedy. Dubya picked him because he would reliably support all the counter-terrorism stuff he was doing and thus that's the ONLY thing he's reliable one. IMO Dubya ****ed us there....
The amicus briefs are firing for (pun intended) the "ubiquitous" and "common-place" language. Because the AR-style rifles are so common, by definition they are not uncommon. Additionally the volume of sales of these types of guns are so high they cannot be seen as outside the norm.
It's estimated there are 8-9 million "AWs" in the US.
Part of Scalia's majority opinion in Heller: "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."
This is a strong hint that the AWB is already on shaky ground with this current Supreme Court. While Kennedy is a wild card in all kinds of rulings, he agreed with this majority opinion and thus, would have to go against his own precedent to side with the liberal wing.
But as we know, anything goes these days.
Agreed. Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas would be going against their own precedent if they were to rule in favor of the ban.
****ing Roberts is the one I worry about these days on most things, not Kennedy. Dubya picked him because he would reliably support all the counter-terrorism stuff he was doing and thus that's the ONLY thing he's reliable one. IMO Dubya ****ed us there....
Agree he has made some questionable decisions, particularly in favor of ACA but there was no precedent there. Roberts and Kennedy have made some bad rulings but if they went against their own precedent they would look like total fools.
----------------
However, I do not like the specific language they are creating during these rulings.
When Scalia mentions "short-barreled shotguns" and "common use," What defines "short-barreled"? SBRs are short barreled and not as common so are they at risk?
brickboy240
10-14-15, 10:18
After the rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage....does anyone really trust this court at all?
I cringe when anything this important goes before them.
This is the same court that:
-upheld ACA
-upheld eminent domain
-upheld warrantless searches
-changes wording of laws to make them fit their rulings
-upheld the ban on concealed carrying (bearing arms!)
-ignored the 10th and pushed for gay marriage
-continually allows the commerce clause to be a catch all
This is a court that has usurped powers never granted to them by the constitution.
Yeah, this is gonna be great if they hear the case- it might actually light the powder keg that is our country right now.
The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, only practiced by those who do not care about the consequences of breaking unconstitutional laws upheld by men and women who swore an oath that means nothing to them.
I wish gun owners would just practice their rights and dissent- stop following all of these idiotic unconstitutional laws that turn rights into permissions- but as most of you have said on here many times- "too much to lose".
Sadder yet is that you may have too much to lose now, but the second our rights are gone- so is everything else you may "have" or "own". Your rights are more important than a bit of comfort and some "material stuff"; even more important than our families.
I hope people wake up and stop following orders and laws that are wrong and unconstitutional...
We can all agree to disagree but I say f*** it.
Go ahead and rip the band aid off and see either what we're up against instead of prolonging the inevitable. As this society seems to be becoming overrun by liberals the more risk we have of getting another liberal justice appointment.
The more "conservative" justices aren't getting any younger or healthier.
brickboy240
10-14-15, 11:33
...and they are not always siding on the "conservative" side of issues.
Yeah, this is gonna be great if they hear the case- it might actually light the powder keg that is our country right now.
The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, only practiced by those who do not care about the consequences of breaking unconstitutional laws upheld by men and women who swore an oath that means nothing to them.
I wish gun owners would just practice their rights and dissent- stop following all of these idiotic unconstitutional laws that turn rights into permissions- but as most of you have said on here many times- "too much to lose".
Sadder yet is that you may have too much to lose now, but the second our rights are gone- so is everything else you may "have" or "own". Your rights are more important than a bit of comfort and some "material stuff"; even more important than our families.
I hope people wake up and stop following orders and laws that are wrong and unconstitutional...
I agree with the above statements, but the problem is that if just you and I do this, we will be unceremoniously crushed under the giant wheels of our out-of-control government. If we can get a third, or half, or even two thirds of the country to join us, then there will be no contest. How do we do that? Even our over zealous lawless government can't fight 150 million Americans, but they can certainly fight you and me alone.
I said in another thread a couple of years ago that one crucial key to this equation is law enforcement. If enough officers from each department across the country simply say "No.", what are these run-amok politicians making these illegal laws going to do about it? Think about it. If just one third or even half the cops in our country said "No. We will not enforce any unconstitutional laws." What will the folks "in power" do? Have the remaining half go arrest the dissenting half? What would happen to our country and the safety of those politicians if half our police force was in jail for refusing to uphold unconstitutional laws? It will never happen. The cops need the same momentum the we citizens need. Once enough of them join up and stand together, it will snowball. There are anti-gun cops out there. What say you LEOs about this subject? Is Officer Gun-Banner going to come arrest you, his co-worker, for refusing to arrest me for exercising my god-given constitutionally protected birth rights?
What about the military? I've got friends and family in the military. They've have point blank told me that they will not be coming to my house, or any other American citizens house, and confiscating weapons or anything else. Some will follow orders blindly, but what percentage? Any one in the military got any insight? If your unit were ordered to go door to door tomorrow, under a civil unrest/martial law situation, are you going to knock on my door? Or kick it in?
A bunch of words written on paper is completely meaningless if law enforcement simply refuses to engage in unconstitutional, un-American behavior. The police and local courts can stop this non-sense at any time by refusing to partake. We all know that the majority of Americans will loudly and with great conviction support them. I certainly will. If "The Chosen One" can continually make end runs and go around the constitutionally mandated legislative process, can't we? There is no law, if no one will enforce it. "They" get away with all of this crap because "we" sit back and allow it.
BoringGuy45
10-14-15, 12:32
This is the same court that:
-upheld ACA
-upheld eminent domain
-upheld warrantless searches
-changes wording of laws to make them fit their rulings
-upheld the ban on concealed carrying (bearing arms!)
-ignored the 10th and pushed for gay marriage
-continually allows the commerce clause to be a catch all
This is a court that has usurped powers never granted to them by the constitution.
Yeah, this is gonna be great if they hear the case- it might actually light the powder keg that is our country right now.
The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, only practiced by those who do not care about the consequences of breaking unconstitutional laws upheld by men and women who swore an oath that means nothing to them.
I wish gun owners would just practice their rights and dissent- stop following all of these idiotic unconstitutional laws that turn rights into permissions- but as most of you have said on here many times- "too much to lose".
Sadder yet is that you may have too much to lose now, but the second our rights are gone- so is everything else you may "have" or "own". Your rights are more important than a bit of comfort and some "material stuff"; even more important than our families.
I hope people wake up and stop following orders and laws that are wrong and unconstitutional...
That gets us nowhere. The fact of the matter is, we can keep up with this whole insurgency thing of finding loopholes or just flat out breaking laws we don't agree with, but sooner or later, those loopholes will close and constant defiance of the law will eventually get a person arrested. The court system isn't perfect, but as good citizens, we have to find a way to use it. Simply not following the law because one doesn't like it, and not even being willing to follow the proper channels to have it changed "because we might lose" is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Sooner or later, we have to go to court and get this changed. We don't really want a civil war.
While we have had cases that haven't gone our way, let's also remember that this is the same court that held, finally, that the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals AND that the states were bound to respect this.
However, I do not like the specific language they are creating during these rulings.
When Scalia mentions "short-barreled shotguns" and "common use," What defines "short-barreled"? SBRs are short barreled and not as common so are they at risk?
I'm leery of this wording as well. However, SBRs, while not AS common as 16" barreled rifles, are still common. Not as many people use short barreled shotguns, to include police and military. Most stick with the 18" models from what I've seen, with the exception being those used for door breaching. This isn't to say I agree with that; I don't. But SBSs are much less common than SBRs.
That gets us nowhere. The fact of the matter is, we can keep up with this whole insurgency thing of finding loopholes or just flat out breaking laws we don't agree with, but sooner or later, those loopholes will close and constant defiance of the law will eventually get a person arrested. The court system isn't perfect, but as good citizens, we have to find a way to use it. Simply not following the law because one doesn't like it, and not even being willing to follow the proper channels to have it changed "because we might lose" is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Sooner or later, we have to go to court and get this changed. We don't really want a civil war.
While we have had cases that haven't gone our way, let's also remember that this is the same court that held, finally, that the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals AND that the states were bound to respect this.
I'm leery of this wording as well. However, SBRs, while not AS common as 16" barreled rifles, are still common. Not as many people use short barreled shotguns, to include police and military. Most stick with the 18" models from what I've seen, with the exception being those used for door breaching. This isn't to say I agree with that; I don't. But SBSs are much less common than SBRs.
I get what you're saying but when the system has degraded/been subverted to what we have now- An out of control SCOTUS that usurped authority never granted to it by the constitution and politicians/LEO's that follow these unconstitutional laws instead of upholding the HIGHEST law of the land (Constitution) and sticking by their oath- how does one utilize such a system and follow proper channels when they themselves are breaking the supreme law of the land and NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION?!?
The founding fathers would very much practice their rights regardless of what authority or entity permitted them to do so by illegal laws or otherwise and not submit to an out of control government or court system- how you could think otherwise is beyond me; history shows us what the founding fathers DID and WHY.
I don't want to be arrested or get involved in a civil war either- but I'm not seeing any chance of regaining our liberty as a whole otherwise.
Let's really think about this:
1) We have elected officials that break their oath DAILY and put forth unconstituional legislation- sometimes getting it passed into law.
2) We have a SCOTUS that has shown several times they have no intent on actually following the constitution- not when "Public safety" is involved, not when they can glob it onto the commerce clause or rewrite the law all together to fit their ruling, not when they believe it is for the "greater good", etc, etc, etc
3) We have LEO's that ignore the constitution and enforce these illegal laws, arresting citizens for practicing their rights- ANY LEO's on here wanna qualify how many times they declined to arrest someone for "illegally" carrying concealed? Or how about qualify how many times they HAVE arrested someone for carrying concealed illegally? YEAH YEAH- just following order- I don't make the laws I just enforce them- blah blah blah- you swore an oath to the Constitution- not to lawmakers or the supreme court. Since the VAST MAJORITY of LEO's are willing to arrest people for "bearing arms" (CC'ing without permit or open carry) does the 2nd amendment really even matter anymore?
4) We as citizens just lay down and take it in the rear. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty crystal clear. We let that one go when we allowed CCW and open carry laws on the books. Think about it, SCOTUS ruled that outlawing people from "Bearing arms" is an acceptable limit to "The right of he ppeople to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". WTF?
How are we supposed to work with these idiots inside a system they have perverted beyond belief; where they break the SUPREME law of the land in the first place and then get LEO's to break the SUPREME law and their oath- and we are not supposed to break the Unconstitutional illegal laws they are forcing on us? We're are the bad ones in this scenario? TWILIGHT ZONE!
I'd love to know how we are going to gain our rights back by conforming to illegal laws and fighting inside a system that is broken at best and throws the Constitution out the window whenever it so chooses- with no consequences form "We the people"; who are supposed to be holding them accountable- it''s an effing joke...
I agree with the above statements, but the problem is that if just you and I do this, we will be unceremoniously crushed under the giant wheels of our out-of-control government. If we can get a third, or half, or even two thirds of the country to join us, then there will be no contest. How do we do that? Even our over zealous lawless government can't fight 150 million Americans, but they can certainly fight you and me alone.
I said in another thread a couple of years ago that one crucial key to this equation is law enforcement. If enough officers from each department across the country simply say "No.", what are these run-amok politicians making these illegal laws going to do about it? Think about it. If just one third or even half the cops in our country said "No. We will not enforce any unconstitutional laws." What will the folks "in power" do? Have the remaining half go arrest the dissenting half? What would happen to our country and the safety of those politicians if half our police force was in jail for refusing to uphold unconstitutional laws? It will never happen. The cops need the same momentum the we citizens need. Once enough of them join up and stand together, it will snowball. There are anti-gun cops out there. What say you LEOs about this subject? Is Officer Gun-Banner going to come arrest you, his co-worker, for refusing to arrest me for exercising my god-given constitutionally protected birth rights?
What about the military? I've got friends and family in the military. They've have point blank told me that they will not be coming to my house, or any other American citizens house, and confiscating weapons or anything else. Some will follow orders blindly, but what percentage? Any one in the military got any insight? If your unit were ordered to go door to door tomorrow, under a civil unrest/martial law situation, are you going to knock on my door? Or kick it in?
A bunch of words written on paper is completely meaningless if law enforcement simply refuses to engage in unconstitutional, un-American behavior. The police and local courts can stop this non-sense at any time by refusing to partake. We all know that the majority of Americans will loudly and with great conviction support them. I certainly will. If "The Chosen One" can continually make end runs and go around the constitutionally mandated legislative process, can't we? There is no law, if no one will enforce it. "They" get away with all of this crap because "we" sit back and allow it.
Spot on for sure. It's complicated- I've tried to communicate to LEO's I interact with regarding unconstitutional laws they enforce and they all say the same thing- "I don't write 'em- I just enforce 'em"; well that goes against your oath to uphold the supreme law of the land I say- and then I get a lot of emotion back from them; it's not easy for someone to realize they are part of the problem and just exactly what they are doing when they enforce laws that are unconstitutional. It's easier to stick head in sand and keep cashing pay checks- ignore it and blame it on lawmakers and SCOTUS.
Do not get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash LEO's or talking shit about it, but I've spoken to more than a few and the same conversation is had each time- "I'm for the Constitution and protecting your rights"- but if you CC'ing without a permit or open carry in Denver I have to arrest you for breaking the law.
I've had a few who said they would not arrest someone for CC'ing without a permit- but when I asked if they would stop a fellow officer from arresting you for the same thing not one has said they would.
If we can't even get the guys that are on our side who are pro 2A to stop enforcing Unconstitutional laws- what chance do we have?
It's not an easy thing to talk about as a lot of LEO's take offense to these statements and are troubled by the hypocrisy of their own actions and DO NOT want to admit it let alone deal with it and change their actions.
It would be interesting to take a poll on M4C of members who are LEO and see how many of them have arrested someone for CC'ing wihout a permit, open carrying in areas where it is "illegal", etc. I'd bet it would be an eye opener for the membership here how pro 2A people can infringe on someones right to bear arms just because a lawmaker and SCOTUS told them to do so... Maybe I am wrong- but I'd love to see those numbers either way they turn out to be.
^Exactly.^
The same is seen on M4C regularly. Basically, lots of people talk the talk, but reveal they are not going to walk the walk if it may negatively impact them. How many of us would stop and say something if we saw a LEO enforcing a law that was unconstitutional? Oh no, I can't stand up, I may get arrested and I have a job, what about my family, ....as he looks the other way and walks.
Government agents of all flavors have been upholding the law since the Whiskey Rebellion.
It's not as if we've all suddenly quit "walking the walk" in the last few years.
Moose-Knuckle
10-14-15, 16:16
Government agents of all flavors have been upholding the law since the Whiskey Rebellion.
It's not as if we've all suddenly quit "walking the walk" in the last few years.
Truth. Most people have never even heard of The Johnson County War, hell most don't even know what happened in Waco.
sevenhelmet
10-14-15, 17:06
Truth. Most people have never even heard of The Johnson County War, hell most don't even know what happened in Waco.
You mean the Branch Dividian Siege, or the Waco biker shootout? I assume the former...
Moose-Knuckle
10-14-15, 17:23
You mean the Branch Dividian Siege, or the Waco biker shootout? I assume the former...
Oops, there is so many incidents of mission creep I forgot there was more than one in Waco. Yes, I meant the Branch Davidian roast.
Government agents of all flavors have been upholding the law since the Whiskey Rebellion.
It's not as if we've all suddenly quit "walking the walk" in the last few years.
Of course they have. And if you re-read my post you'll see I was referring to citizens standing up when they see LEO's enforcing unconstitutional laws.
The will of the citizen to stand up and say "Enough!" has, for the most part, been stamped out.
That's okay. Roughly only 10% of the American colonial population took part in the Revolution.
There still is a 10% out here, maybe they are just about fed up. Tree of liberty blood, tyrants, patriots, something, something.
sevenhelmet
10-14-15, 19:22
Of course they have. And if you re-read my post you'll see I was referring to citizens standing up when they see LEO's enforcing unconstitutional laws.
The will of the citizen to stand up and say "Enough!" has, for the most part, been stamped out.
That's okay. Roughly only 10% of the American colonial population took part in the Revolution.
There still is a 10% out here, maybe they are just about fed up. Tree of liberty blood, tyrants, patriots, something, something.
The problem lies in coordination of who and when. Bolstered by numbers, I think more people will stand up and defend the Constitution of the greatest nation on Earth. The pack of wolves currently in charge has done a great job of promoting a culture which divides us.
Looking back on the last few SC rulings....this could go very badly.
Amazing how some think this might end in our favor. What are these people smoking?
They are clueless.
I doubt very much that this will have any positive effect for freedom and liberty.
And those of you saying we have nothing to lose are fooling yourselves. Those in already restricted states will very likely lose any chance at restoring the freedoms that have already been infringed and eroded. And this could open up other states to lose their freedoms as all it will take is a once conservative legislature to become a liberal progressive one and then it will be even harder to undo the damage.
What should be challenged is that ****ing unconstitutional "Sporter Clause".
A+ answer!!!
I agree with the above statements, but the problem is that if just you and I do this, we will be unceremoniously crushed under the giant wheels of our out-of-control government. If we can get a third, or half, or even two thirds of the country to join us, then there will be no contest. How do we do that? Even our over zealous lawless government can't fight 150 million Americans, but they can certainly fight you and me alone.
I said in another thread a couple of years ago that one crucial key to this equation is law enforcement. If enough officers from each department across the country simply say "No.", what are these run-amok politicians making these illegal laws going to do about it? Think about it. If just one third or even half the cops in our country said "No. We will not enforce any unconstitutional laws." What will the folks "in power" do? Have the remaining half go arrest the dissenting half? What would happen to our country and the safety of those politicians if half our police force was in jail for refusing to uphold unconstitutional laws? It will never happen. The cops need the same momentum the we citizens need. Once enough of them join up and stand together, it will snowball. There are anti-gun cops out there. What say you LEOs about this subject? Is Officer Gun-Banner going to come arrest you, his co-worker, for refusing to arrest me for exercising my god-given constitutionally protected birth rights?
What about the military? I've got friends and family in the military. They've have point blank told me that they will not be coming to my house, or any other American citizens house, and confiscating weapons or anything else. Some will follow orders blindly, but what percentage? Any one in the military got any insight? If your unit were ordered to go door to door tomorrow, under a civil unrest/martial law situation, are you going to knock on my door? Or kick it in?
A bunch of words written on paper is completely meaningless if law enforcement simply refuses to engage in unconstitutional, un-American behavior. The police and local courts can stop this non-sense at any time by refusing to partake. We all know that the majority of Americans will loudly and with great conviction support them. I certainly will. If "The Chosen One" can continually make end runs and go around the constitutionally mandated legislative process, can't we? There is no law, if no one will enforce it. "They" get away with all of this crap because "we" sit back and allow it.
There were plenty of police that went door to door during the boston bomber search and katrina.
If we can't even get the guys that are on our side who are pro 2A to stop enforcing Unconstitutional laws- what chance do we have?
That is just it. We need to get them on our side.
Conversations like the ones you describe above are the start. You've planted a seed. That emotional reaction you got when you painted them into a corner woke something up. They don't want to do what they are being ordered to do and we can convince at least some of them that they are right to be feeling wrong about orders to enforce unconstitutional laws. When you had each of those conversations you planted a seed. You may not see it grow to fruition, but at least some of the time it will. Might take a while. Someone else like you might need to water it along the way, but in time some of those seeds will sprout, mature and bear fruit. I've had many similar conversations with LE and military. Somebody has to be the first one to break that ice. So many of them a looking for a way out of this conundrum they are in. Just like us, they can't fight it alone and if they try, the system will chew them up and spit them out. But if enough of them decide to fight it at the same time, they cannot lose.
Keep talking to them. Keep convincing them. Keep encouraging them and reinforcing them the we are all on the same side and we are the good guys.
For many years I just kept quiet about all this. A few years ago I decided stoic silence will not win the day. It ain't easy beating your head against the same wall every day, but I do, and that wall is starting to crack. More and more people are waking up and the recent audacious acts of the left are making it easier and easier to convince the masses that have been duped by the media. Not too long ago I had the distinct pleasure of helping a neighbor scrape the Obama bumper sticker off his car window. He is no longer a fan. His quote: "This is not the kind of change I was hoping for…"
There were plenty of police that went door to door during the boston bomber search and katrina.
Yeah. That was a bad deal. Do you think any of them learned anything from that? Do you think the country learned anything from that? It certainly stuck in your mind as a shining example of what not to do. Perhaps others saw it that way too? How many of those door knockers in New Orleans were thinking to themselves, "Man, we shouldn't be doing this…", but saw no way out of it without losing their job or worse?
I recall a law being passed after Katrina to prevent the feds from confiscating weapons during times of disaster too.
MountainRaven
10-14-15, 23:55
1- If you don't like the way our government works, change it.
2- If you want people to protest unconstitutional laws, great! You start. Martin Luther King, Jr didn't sit around all day on internet forums bitching about segregation, he went out and broke the law and hid absolutely nothing about his violating the law. It was only in violating the law that he could demonstrate the shear ridiculousness of the law and get things to change.
3- The only people who get to ultimately decide the constitutionality of the law is the Supreme Court of the United States. Meaning that if you believe these laws to be unconstitutional, they are the best and last hope. Congress sure isn't doing anything - and even if SCOTUS rules that AWBs are Constitutional, Congress can still pass laws repealing state AWBs.
4- Countless people with skin in the game believed the time was wrong when Brown v. Board of Education was brought before the Supreme Court. To those who believe this is the wrong time to bring these cases before the court: What better time than now? When?
Moose-Knuckle
10-15-15, 01:56
1- If you don't like the way our government works, change it.
2- If you want people to protest unconstitutional laws, great! You start. Martin Luther King, Jr didn't sit around all day on internet forums bitching about segregation, he went out and broke the law and hid absolutely nothing about his violating the law. It was only in violating the law that he could demonstrate the shear ridiculousness of the law and get things to change.
3- The only people who get to ultimately decide the constitutionality of the law is the Supreme Court of the United States. Meaning that if you believe these laws to be unconstitutional, they are the best and last hope. Congress sure isn't doing anything - and even if SCOTUS rules that AWBs are Constitutional, Congress can still pass laws repealing state AWBs.
4- Countless people with skin in the game believed the time was wrong when Brown v. Board of Education was brought before the Supreme Court. To those who believe this is the wrong time to bring these cases before the court: What better time than now? When?
Thomas Jefferson had his own ideas of what a civil rights movement should look like. Kind of why he wrote the 2nd right after the 1st.
DreadPirateMoyer
10-15-15, 06:43
Thomas Jefferson had his own ideas of what a civil rights movement should look like. Kind of why he wrote the 2nd right after the 1st.
Jefferson didn't write the Constitution or Bill of Rights. He was in France most of the time. Madison was the father of both.
The common use thing kills me... Like, stuff doesn't magically become in the common use over night. If there is no initial starting point well then.
Moose-Knuckle
10-15-15, 11:44
Jefferson didn't write the Constitution or Bill of Rights. He was in France most of the time. Madison was the father of both.
I stand corrected, I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence.
Point is, the framers/founders knew the day would come and realized that disarmament was the linchpin.
MountainRaven
10-15-15, 13:02
Thomas Jefferson had his own ideas of what a civil rights movement should look like. Kind of why he wrote the 2nd right after the 1st.
Hey, you can be Malcolm X or you can be MLK, Jr. Either way, they didn't sit around complaining about how their civil rights were being violated on an Internet forum or a bar or with the congregation. They did shit about it.
So if you're not happy, get off your butt, get organized, and go to work. Or sit back, shut up, and enjoy the ride.
There were plenty of police that went door to door during the boston bomber search and katrina.
I remember seeing video of a blond haired woman, ordered out of her house at gunpoint, and frog marched down the street, while a search was done of her property. She certainly didn't look like either one of the Tsarnaev brothers. It's all about giving up YOUR freedoms for the safety and well being of the rest of the population. I think I'll call it: Collective Safety. That has a good Marxist ring to it.
Moose-Knuckle
10-15-15, 13:26
Hey, you can be Malcolm X or you can be MLK, Jr. Either way, they didn't sit around complaining about how their civil rights were being violated on an Internet forum or a bar or with the congregation. They did shit about it.
So if you're not happy, get off your butt, get organized, and go to work. Or sit back, shut up, and enjoy the ride.
While I understand what you are saying. We're all just buying time at this point. One can only vote, write letters, send emails, and invite their neighbors/co-workers/relatives to the range for so long. Eventually their hand will be forced one way or another.
As for demonstrating the MSM will never give any pro 2nd group the air time. All we get to see are the open carry tactical Timmy's flagging soccer mom's at Starbucks.
Hey, you can be Malcolm X or you can be MLK, Jr. Either way, they didn't sit around complaining about how their civil rights were being violated on an Internet forum or a bar or with the congregation. They did shit about it.
So if you're not happy, get off your butt, get organized, and go to work. Or sit back, shut up, and enjoy the ride.
So which one are you?
You are still posting, so you haven't yet been arrested for peaceful civil disobedience. You haven't been on the news for violent " domestic terrorist" activity.
Sooooooo, you must be sitting back and enjoying this great ride, right?
I can guarantee you that MLK and MX both did a lot of talking before acting, and both of them had 1000's of backers too, and were not acting all alone. The dialogue starts in places like bars and now internet forums. We all gotta see that we are like minded and have similar goals before organizing. Can't just go off all half cocked and will nilly, can we?
Moose-Knuckle
10-16-15, 11:23
The dialogue starts in places like bars and now internet forums. We all gotta see that we are like minded and have similar goals before organizing. Can't just go off all half cocked and will nilly, can we?
True story.
The Green Dragon Tavern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dragon_Tavern)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.