When is enough enough?

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1089073" timestamp="1388858430"] You can’t call for the assassination of officials elected by the people just because you don’t agree with what they say. You are a loud mouth when it comes to the rights of individuals and innocent until proven guilty, but apparently are okay with the murder of those that don’t agree with you or that you think have committed some crime.[/quote] As I said Dave, that goes beyond a bad political position and crosses the line to being an act of aggression against the American people, an act for which they are morally justified in defending themselves by any means necessary. The rights of the individual supersede the powers granted to the state. P.S. Don't forget that I included their agents that act on their behalf as well. ;)

Edited January 4, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

When any individual or group initiates an act of aggression against another(victim), then that victim is justified in using whatever force is necessary/available to defend against that aggression. It does not matter what office they hold or what uniform they wear. Attempts to disarm the American people are an overt act of aggression and justify whatever means are available in defense of that natural right.

[DaveTN]

As I said Dave, that goes beyond a bad political position and crosses the line to being an act of aggression against the American people, an act for which they are morally justified in defending themselves by any means necessary. The rights of the individual supersede the powers granted to the state. P.S. Don't forget that I included their agents that act on their behalf as well. ;)

Our founding Fathers put in place a system for us to take care of our differences. They never believed it was perfect and could not be changed or interpreted. You don’t get to say you believe in the Constitution and in the same breath call for the murder of those you think are violating it.

[Pat]

Can I ask a question?

 

Who here, on this board, can honestly say they would really and truly take up arms and go into full rebellion, should federal or state gun control measures be implemented?

 

Saying and doing are two different things, but I feel that if government or a nation feels it needs to disarm its populace, then said government is too restrictive for anyone with any sense of independence or freedom to live under.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1089076" timestamp="1388859372"]Our founding Fathers put in place a system for us to take care of our differences. They never believed it was perfect and could not be changed or interpreted. You don’t get to say you believe in the Constitution and in the same breath call for the murder of those you think are violating it.[/quote] What you call murder, I call a lawful act of self defense against tyrannical agents committing acts of violence against an innocent citizenry. Tow-mae-tow / Tow-mah-tow.

[JohnC]

I found this info on "murder by communism" which has some studies with some estimates on how many millions perished under those political dictatorships.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

[DaveTN]

What you call murder, I call a lawful act of self defense against tyrannical agents committing acts of violence against an innocent citizenry. Tow-mae-tow / Tow-mah-tow.

Chuck do you believe in States Rights? Or do you believe that the Federal government can tell the state of Tennessee that everyone can strap on a gun and go wherever they want, or that no one can strap on a gun?

And it's Tow-mae-tow. Edited January 4, 2014 by DaveTN

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1089095" timestamp="1388861846"]Chuck do you believe in States Rights? Or do you believe that the Federal government can tell the state of Tennessee that everyone can strap on a gun and go wherever they want, or that no one can strap on a gun? And it's Tow-mae-tow.[/quote] That's an incomplete choice of options. I don't believe the the state of TN (or any other) has the authority to disbar the individual from his natural right to keep and bear (wear/carry) arms. Nor do I believe the federal government has the authority to compel the state to act in one way or another on that subject. That authority is not only not granted to the fed.gov, it is specifically disallowed to engage the issue. It is up to the people themselves to secure their natural rights from those who would usurp them be they agents of the state or federal government.

[DaveTN]

That's an incomplete choice of options. I don't believe the the state of TN (or any other) has the authority to disbar the individual from his natural right to keep and bear (wear/carry) arms. Nor do I believe the federal government has the authority to compel the state to act in one way or another on that subject. That authority is not only not granted to the fed.gov, it is specifically disallowed to engage the issue. It is up to the people themselves to secure their natural rights from those who would usurp them be they agents of the state or federal government.

I believe my right to be armed comes from a natural right; not the 2nd amendment. But the courts do not agree. So who do you want making or enforcing the laws, the Feds or the State? Neither is not a valid answer; it’s just dodging the question.

[RobertNashville]

Our founding Fathers put in place a system for us to take care of our differences. They never believed it was perfect and could not be changed or interpreted. You don’t get to say you believe in the Constitution and in the same breath call for the murder of those you think are violating it.

Another relatively rare occasion when you and I agree.

 

I cherish my God-given rights as much as any one; I may even be willing to face certain death to defend them and such as defense could, perhaps, be reasonably called "a lawful act of self defense against tyrannical agents committing acts of violence against an innocent citizenry" but in the end it wouldn't make much difference because I would still be dead and I seriously doubt that my "sacrifice" would benefit anyone, including me.  I don't know if we (the country) can still change our fate with the system the founders put in place...it may well be too late, but that system is still the one best hope we have, I believe, to set things right.

[JohnC]

Like I said before, the best way to nullify an unconstitutional law is DO NOT COMPLY in mass peaceful organized fashion.

There is no way they could enforce a law like this if not one single gun owner complied.

And who would want to go knock on thousands of folks doors to confiscate unregistered guns and arrest the owners of said guns just because a spineless politician made law abiding citizens yesterday, felons today via the stroke of a pen?

If I was an LEO, SWAT or any of branch of law enforcement, there is no way I would enforce an unconstitutional law. I'd tell said spineless politician, you ride in the SWAT van and you be the first out of the vehicle to knock on the door if you want to make unconstitutional laws and enforce them!

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1089104" timestamp="1388863153"]I believe my right to be armed comes from a natural right; not the 2nd amendment. But the courts do not agree. So who do you want making or enforcing the laws, the Feds or the State? Neither is not a valid answer; it’s just dodging the question.[/quote] I'm not dodging. I am saying that neither has the authority to make laws on it and it is up to you to defend that natural right for yourself against anyone who attempts to usurp it just as it is up to me to defend it against anyone who attempts to violate my natural rights. Individual rights must ultimately be defended by the individual. When you give responsibility to the collective to defend that right you have just turned it into a privilege that can be revoked by the collective. If the collective respected out right secede on an individual basis, it wouldn't be as much of an urgent issue.

[RobertNashville]

Like I said before, the best way to nullify an unconstitutional law is DO NOT COMPLY in mass peaceful organized fashion.

There is no way they could enforce a law like this if not one single gun owner complied.

And who would want to go knock on thousands of folks doors to confiscate unregistered guns and arrest the owners of said guns just because a spineless politician made law abiding citizens yesterday, felons today via the stroke of a pen?

If I was an LEO, SWAT or any of branch of law enforcement, there is no way I would enforce an unconstitutional law. I'd tell said spineless politician, you ride in the SWAT van and you be the first out of the vehicle to knock on the door if you want to make unconstitutional laws and enforce them!

I can agree that while it could work, I wonder on what basis do you suggest that there would BE mass, peaceful, organized non-compliance?

I don't see such organization happening...and while you may not I'm sure there are plenty of LEO, SWAT, other branches of law enforcement who would go door to door if that is what they were told to do.

 

[gregintenn]

Our founding Fathers put in place a system for us to take care of our differences. They never believed it was perfect and could not be changed or interpreted. You don’t get to say you believe in the Constitution and in the same breath call for the murder of those you think are violating it.

Why do you think the second amendment exists?

[Oh Shoot]

Can I ask a question?

 

Who here, on this board, can honestly say they would really and truly take up arms and go into full rebellion, should federal or state gun control measures be implemented?

 

Saying and doing are two different things, but I feel that if government or a nation feels it needs to disarm its populace, then said government is too restrictive for anyone with any sense of independence or freedom to live under.

 

You can't make "full armed rebellion" against "the government" as an individual. You'd simply be confronting your local LEAs. And lose. And be discounted as a crazy person.

 

- OS

Edited January 4, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

Why do you think the second amendment exists?

At the time, to maintain a well regulated militia.

Today enforcement of it either way by the Federal government would be a slap in the face to States Rights. If we ever have a Constitutional Convention it will be gone. I believe I have a right to carry, but forgive me if I don’t hang that right on a dog like the 2nd amendment.

[Oh Shoot]

At the time, to maintain a well regulated militia.

Today enforcement of it either way by the Federal government would be a slap in the face to States Rights. If we ever have a Constitutional Convention it will be gone. I believe I have a right to carry, but forgive me if I don’t hang that right on a dog like the 2nd amendment.

 

Yep. We're lucky 2A is there, as it has stood as our justification for individual firearm possession. But certainly it wasn't put there with a mind to self defense, hunting, or recreational shooting. The Founders simply did not conceive that those endeavors would need to be defended, any more than your right to own and use a knife, ax, hoe, or hammer.

 

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep. We're lucky 2A is there, as it has stood as our justification for individual firearm possession. But certainly it wasn't put there with a mind to self defense, hunting, or recreational shooting. The Founders simply did not conceive that those endeavors would need to be defended, any more than your right to own and use a knife, ax, hoe, or hammer.

Hmm, are you sure they were unimaginative enough to never consider the possibility? They were determined to shuck off kings and royalty, and england & other european states restricted the common man's right to hunting and private arms. So its not like they didn't have practical examples of the hazard, near to hand? Edited January 4, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

Hmm, are you sure they were unimaginative enough to never consider the possibility? They were determined to shuck off kings and royalty, and england & other european states restricted the common man's right to hunting and private arms. So its not like they didn't have practical examples of the hazard, near to hand?

 

Their motivation to include it was so that the citizenry could be armed to rise against foreign invasion, or a government turned tyrannical, hence the mention of the militia.

 

Whether any ever thought of the possibility of firearms being forbidden for the simple functions of personal self defense, hunting, and plinking is unknown, but I doubt it. It would have been nice if they had specifically added something about the self defense/carry issue, though, if they did consider it, just to further pin things down.

 

And yeah, a sane person would understand that the simple inclusion of terms "bear" and "not be infringed" should be enough. But obviously it wasn't.

 

- OS

Edited January 4, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

That's a good question and the answer/line in the sand is definitely out there, though perhaps somewhat obscure...

 

I think the first thing to establish is that the United States Constitution does not grant rights, it stipulates, validates, and mandates that rights are natural by birth and that they cannot be removed without due process of law, which itself must be constitutional. Because these rights are natural, they cannot be amended or legislated or ruled away. 

 

Second- the Constitution (and we all know this) is the supreme law of the land (Supremacy Clause, Article 6, Clause 2) requiring all judges and states to abide by it. This includes SCOTUS which interprets the constitutionality of laws. 

 

Third-American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, sections 177 and 256 make it clear that any statute which is unconstitutional, regardless of who wrote it, who is trying to enforce it, or by what method, carries no weight of law, confers no authority, and obligates no-one to comply. The pivotal issue then is WHO, if anyone, has the authority to determine what is constitutional. Most people assume it is SCOTUS. I submit this is incorrect. The Constitution does not charge SCOTUS with legal review of all legislation, only that which is challenged by the courts. Further, it is ludicrous to expect the population as a whole, to simply roll over and take it if a "law" which is blatantly unconstitutional, is upheld by the Supreme Court. By way of example, let's assume that the need for warrants to search was negated by SCOTUS, this flies directly in the face of 4th amendment protections. It then falls to the people and/or the states to put their collective foot down and resist that action, to whatever level becomes necessary (ideally the legislature and the courts are exhausted before ANY other options are considered).

 

SO in summary, IMO the line in the sand is when an action clearly violates the Constitution, SCOTUS has upheld the action, and the state, National Guard, local government, and law enforcement will not intervene to protect the public. That is the point, I believe, that the people have the right to resist, by force, if necessary.

 

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Their motivation to include it was so that the citizenry could be armed to rise against foreign invasion, or a government turned tyrannical, hence the mention of the militia.
 
Whether any ever thought of the possibility of firearms being forbidden for the simple functions of personal self defense, hunting, and plinking is unknown, but I doubt it. It would have been nice if they had specifically added something about the self defense/carry issue, though, if they did consider it.
 
- OS

Mebbe so, but the folk came from places where they could get in big trouble hunting the king's game, or the local duke or earl's game. And there were class based weapons restrictions.

I read one article where a historian counted colonial printed instances of the phrase "bear arms" and there were two contexts, about equally balanced. One meaning was "being in the army" or "going to war", and the other was more generically "going armed".

[Oh Shoot]

Mebbe so, but the folk came from places where they could get in big trouble hunting the king's game, or the local duke or earl's game. And there were class based weapons restrictions.

I read one article where a historian counted colonial printed instances of the phrase "bear arms" and there were two contexts, about equally balanced. One meaning was "being in the army" or "going to war", and the other was more generically "going armed".

 

All good points. The only thing is that all the writings I recall from the founders, the ones from which all the famous gun quotes are lifted, always put firearm ownership into the justification of overthrowing external invasion or internal tyranny. There may be some regarding personal self defense, but I don't recall any?

 

Not that the founders would have any problem defining personal self defense as the reason for that right, I just don't think they considered that would ever be in question, but only the idea that a repressive government might take them away to prevent its overthrow.

 

Of course, our repressive government has proven that the Constitution is indeed mere words to be bandied about and twisted into whatever actual policy it can get away with -- as far as firearms, that began in 1934 and no mass uprisings occurred then, nor to date.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

That's a good question and the answer/line in the sand is definitely out there, though perhaps somewhat obscure...
 
I think the first thing to establish is that the United States Constitution does not grant rights, it stipulates, validates, and mandates that rights are natural by birth and that they cannot be removed without due process of law, which itself must be constitutional. Because these rights are natural, they cannot be amended or legislated or ruled away. 
 
Second- the Constitution (and we all know this) is the supreme law of the land (Supremacy Clause, Article 6, Clause 2) requiring all judges and states to abide by it. This includes SCOTUS which interprets the constitutionality of laws. 
 
Third-American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, sections 177 and 256 make it clear that any statute which is unconstitutional, regardless of who wrote it, who is trying to enforce it, or by what method, carries no weight of law, confers no authority, and obligates no-one to comply. The pivotal issue then is WHO, if anyone, has the authority to determine what is constitutional. Most people assume it is SCOTUS. I submit this is incorrect. The Constitution does not charge SCOTUS with legal review of all legislation, only that which is challenged by the courts. Further, it is ludicrous to expect the population as a whole, to simply roll over and take it if a "law" which is blatantly unconstitutional, is upheld by the Supreme Court. By way of example, let's assume that the need for warrants to search was negated by SCOTUS, this flies directly in the face of 4th amendment protections. It then falls to the people and/or the states to put their collective foot down and resist that action, to whatever level becomes necessary (ideally the legislature and the courts are exhausted before ANY other options are considered).
 
SO in summary, IMO the line in the sand is when an action clearly violates the Constitution, SCOTUS has upheld the action, and the state, National Guard, local government, and law enforcement will not intervene to protect the public. That is the point, I believe, that the people have the right to resist, by force, if necessary.

This is exactly the way the CT gun owners should've responded.

[RobertNashville]

This is exactly the way the CT gun owners should've responded.

Responded how....with force???  If they had there would just be a lot of dead folks in CT right now (or in jail for the rest of their lives).

 

We can discuss the academic issue all day long and talk bout "rights" and when people have the authority to resist with force, etc but unless someone stands up as a leader and gathers a few million man/woman army to resist then any "resistance with force" will simply end with the resisting "patriot" being shot dead by police or hauled off to jail if he's lucky enough to not get killed.

[JohnC]

1. Responded how....with force???  If they had there would just be a lot of dead folks in CT right now (or in jail for the rest of their lives).
 
2. We can discuss the academic issue all day long and talk bout "rights" and when people have the authority to resist with force, etc but unless someone stands up as a leader and gathers a few million man/woman army to resist then any "resistance with force" will simply end with the resisting "patriot" being shot dead by police or hauled off to jail if he's lucky enough to not get killed.

 

1. No, if you mean it as launching a preemptive unorganized violent response instead of exhausting all other peaceful and non-violent proper legal means.

 

I am saying they should have exercised peaceful non-violent non-compliance with said unconstitutional law and then followed up by going through and exhausting all proper legal means to repeal or nullify that law.

 

I am for fighting these political battles through non-violence as long as it takes to win.

 

If the CT gun owners had at least taken the first (non-violent) steps in preserving their rights, they wouldn't have been standing in that line (see red bold text above).

 

2. Exactly right. I agree with this totally. There is no way for an individual to respond preemptively and/or by his or herself violently and have a positive outcome. If anything, it would even hurt the cause and give the left-wing media and their political friends more fuel for their anti-second amendment movement.

 

Aside from that clarification, did you even read his post?

It says go through all the peaceful legal means first. I was agreeing more or less with that: "ideally the legislature and the courts are exhausted before ANY other options are considered."

 

 

 

 It then falls to the people and/or the states to put their collective foot down and resist that action, to whatever level becomes necessary (ideally the legislature and the courts are exhausted before ANY other options are considered).
 

 

And let's get this right. None of us are looking for an excuse for violence. None of us want to be in any battles. All we want is our natural and constitutional rights, unrestricted, not revoked, and interpreted as originally intended by our framers.