Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guardmt;2518431[B

]Insanity? So we roll over and let them continue to do what they please?[/B]

---

They is us, my friend. We vote for them. "They" come from amongst us. Just because you or I don't like
some particular set of laws, gives us no right to supplant our judgment over that of Congress's judgment, and no
right whatsoever of rebellion. We have the right to petition for redress of grievances; we have a right to peacefully
assemble; to speak out. We have no unilateral right to take up arms against the United States. I'm amazed
that, the anarchy which would follow aside, anyone would think of such as a reasonable course.

Believe me, posts and discussions of this sort harm gun owners. If anti-s read them on the floor of Congress and if
the news people re-published them, we would come out looking extremely unreasonable.

Your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, does not extend to armed challenge against lawfully elected
officials. Get that, or you could have a fine old age in a Super Max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

No difference. The Federal Government is the product of the constitution.

---

That is a debatable point really

The whole problem is single issue voters. They see a skin color and they vote that way. They see gay rights and they vote that way. They see someone go on a TV and say "we want to make the rich people pay more" and there are people who vote for that guy.

Too many people look at one issue and make their decision based on that and that alone. Too few of us look at the whole person and everything they believe and make a sound decision based on that. Also, too many os us see a big D or R and check the box.

So what we have is a bunch of people who don't know what a person's belief system is, voting that same person in and then complaining about something later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrandZJ

If they impose a magazine limit on handguns, what will happen? Will you have to surrender anything above, say, 10 rounds, or are you just banned from bringing them outside your home?

---

Depends on who you are and what you respect. Me? I own my hi-cap mags and I have no respect for our current liar in chief. As such, any form of restrictive legislation passed by them to limit my rights will be viewed as unconstitutional and a violation of my rights. Hence, I will not turn in, turn over or give up anything. Period.
Attachment 66109

Attachment 66116

Quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, 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.

---

Quoted from The Declaration of Independence...

Not "constitutional" of course...

But was ratified by the states...

Now this does not specifically spell out exactly how the people will accomplish such an "alter/abolish" action...



But to myself and many others that action is also "self-evident".

:hand15:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peckman28

Quite frankly, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to read the Constitution and compare it with current federal functions...and conclude that the two aren't even close. The federal government has dropped the Constitution from its list of concerns in virtually every area. The only amendment I see them taking seriously is the 16th. It is exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when your only focus is on how the government's actions are all legal, and anything we do aside from hitting the ballot box is illegal. Should the transition back out of statism be done peacefully? Absolutely. However, pretending the federal government isn't in blatant violation of the Constitution with almost every activity is just plain ridiculous.

---

I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDusmc

I find it amazing that a "VIP member" on this forum would be cowardly enough to honestly suggest that we lay down and allow our rights to be taken from us while our "government" tears the constitution to shreads.

---

That's the amazing beauty, and largest weakness, of what makes our country the greatest nation in the free world. We are afforded the right to speak out against whatever we choose. Hop loves to exercise his First Amendment right and uses it to downplay the importance of our Second Amendment right. He has this right without qualification, so even though he is historically inaccurate and bases most of what he says on nothing more than supposition (or propaganda), it remains his right to say. I say it's a weakness because being free to speak out against the very things that keep you free, exposes the dichotomy that must exist for a truly free people to remain so. Censorship of "dangerous" ideas is always the last thing to fall, which then turns a free people into an oppressed people.

Thankfully there have always been men, and women, that have chosen the a much more difficult path; and that path is the one that protects his rights, irregardless of how he feels about their sacrifice or the measures by which they achieved the rights he enjoys today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.

---

Not so easily done. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the Constitution and think about it for a little while. There is no constitutional authority for the drug war, none for the 1934 NFA, none for an EPA that will march onto your land and tell you they've declared it wetlands, and if you keep using it they'll fine you $10,000 a day, no authority for an FDA to come in and tell a terminally ill patient what treatments they will or will not put into their own body. NONE. You go ahead and try to refute it, and if you post ANYTHING other than citing a section of the Constitution that allows for the abuses I just came up with off the top of my head, your argument is finished already. You vastly overestimate your own knowledge, and underestimate the arguments of those who point out how far away from what the Constitution actually authorizes our federal government has strayed. Your constant condescension makes it that much more ridiculous. Pointing out the folly of armed insurrection against our government...you'll get a good deal of sympathy from me. Saying the government currently operates perfectly within the confines of the Constitution is just plain flabbergasting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

That's the amazing beauty, and largest weakness, of what makes our country the greatest nation in the free world. We are afforded the right to speak out against whatever we choose. Hop loves to exercise his First Amendment right and uses it to downplay the importance of our Second Amendment right. He has this right without qualification, so even though he is historically inaccurate and bases most of what he says on nothing more than supposition (or propaganda), it remains his right to say. I say it's a weakness because being free to speak out against the very things that keep you free, exposes the dichotomy that must exist for a truly free people to remain so. Censorship of "dangerous" ideas is always the last thing to fall, which then turns a free people into an oppressed people.

Thankfully there have always been men, and women, that have chosen the a much more difficult path; and that path is the one that protects his rights, irregardless of how he feels about their sacrifice or the measures by which they achieved the rights he enjoys today.

---

I agree, and I would hope that most members here would defend his first amendment right just as vigorously as they would the 2nd amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksholder

Hop - we have two radically different understandings of reality.

In your world if:
- O changed Kennedy or one of the conservative justices out for a Sotomayer/Kagan clone
- And O declares, under EO, that the 2A no longer applies and everyone must turn in all guns, swords, knives and baseball bats or face imprisonment
- And if SCOTUS would reinterpret the 2A to mean that only the government can possess guns, which it would if so reconstituted

This would mean that even if the 2A had not been repealed, disarming the people of the USA would be a perfectly legal act of the federal government.

In my world, this would not be so. Just sayin.

---

K, my dear internet buddy, that post is full of "ifs." We all know the old saying about
if my grandmother had .......she'd be my grandfather.

Let's not string a bunch of ifs into a calamity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm just completely flabbergasted when I read comments as the above. I'm not going to respond and refute; something
easily done. Not worth the effort as your mind is clearly made up and won't be swayed.

---

Surely you are not truly flabbergasted...

It's just that some of us are more "spirit of the law" rather than "letter of the law" when it comes to what is legal (constitutionally) or not.

It should be easy to see where this mindset comes from considering how much judicial activism has taken place over the course of our history...

As for not refuting because it's easily done... True.

From a "legal" standpoint you are absolutely correct sir... I could play devils advocate easily as well...

Look beyond the words on the paper and try to see intent...

It can be a beautiful sight!

:hand15:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

It is. That is reality and not fantasy. Everything Congress does is legal and presumed constitutional until
such time as Federal courts find otherwise. If you don't believe that, you don't really believe in our constitutional
form of government, so stop complaining about government not following the constitution you don't seem to believe in.
You (general you, not meaning you as an individual) have no right of rebellion. That is not in our constitution.

Note, you have a right to peacefully assemble, to petition, and to seek redress of grievances. That
part of 1A isn't in there by accident. It is the safety valve so many here seem to overlook.

---

And to this I say....
Attachment 66117

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

K, my dear internet buddy, that post is full of "ifs." We all know the old saying about
if my grandmother had .......she'd be my grandfather.

Let's not string a bunch of ifs into a calamity.

---

Hop - let's examine the what ifs here - there are three.

1. Changing out Kennedy or one of the conservative justices - this is reasonably likely given the ages of Kennedy and Scalia. It is not a given, but not unreasonable to consider. We have seen the quality of the justices that O puts on the court and there is no reason to doubt the next will be a Sotomayer/Kagan clone.

2. O declares that all must turn in weapons - true O has not gone past guns, but this is his stated objective towards guns. He has stated it from his earliest positions in politics and recently. I have no doubt that, if he could, he would make such a decree. If he aligns the court, I think he will make that play.

3. If #1 is completed, there is absolutely no reason to expect that SCOTUS would do anything other than what Kagan and Sotomayer are both on record as saying they would do.

These were not some far fetched what ifs, these are very much realistic and possible, if not probable, questions to ponder.

There are a few here who need to take a Xanax and chill out. There are a few who need to remove your heads from the sand and look around.

No one is coming for your guns....repeat that until you understand it. ...

Yes, there may be a change in certain laws that will say you can't be found in possession of certain type weapons, or ammo but that exist now. You will have a very expensive paperweight you can't be caught with so you will just need to keep it hidden but they are not coming for it or you until you use it...

Some here seem to think they can't survive without massive firepower in their basements....that any weapons restriction is an infringement on there right to bear arms. Well sorry you can't have hand grenades, Rocket launchers, and 50 cal's on the back your jeep wranglers.

There are limits to all the rights we have...besides, if you're not happy living here you can always move to another country, or Ill......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm afraid several of you missed the main point and misconstrued what I wrote. So,let me try again.

Of course the men who turned out were bearing personally owned firearms. That is indisputable. The point I was making
is that the decision to have a Revolution against England was a political decision made by the lawful authorities of the various colonies and their representatives sent to Philadelphia. The decision was not made by the people as individuals.

Government was at work, and government organized the rebellion by raising money, obtaining munitions, arranging for the manufacture of such of arms and ships, floating a Navy of sorts, arranging
alliances with France, using diplomacy with the Spaniards.

The American Revolutionary war was quite a different affair from the chaotic anarchistic stuff you see now in Syria, it was organized by government and commanded top down by General Washington on instructions from a Continental Congress.

Structurally, all those guns in the hands of the hands of private soldiers and in the hands of privateers were under the control of the central government-- the Continental Congress.

The same occurred for the Civil War. Rebellion was not a bottom up thing. It was top down, led by the state
governments.

Many who post here seem to have a fanciful notion that our government is "out of control" and that we need
a bottom up revolution. That is insanity. It would not work. It is impractical, illegal, and speaking of it is the very
antithesis of adhering to whatever oath you may have taken (and most of us have) to preserve, protect, and defend,
the constitution of the United States.

---

Hopyard, I think we all understand that. At least I do. And that is all well and good. However, reading the federalist papers, and understanding why the 2nd Amendment was put in place, is to understand that the founding fathers believed it was necessary to provide a provision for free men, to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government. A government which through greed, and corruption at the highest levels overstep their governing authority and became nothing less than tyrants.

The federalist papers, nor the Constitution says anywhere that we must first form a new governing body which becomes recognized in some quasi legitimate fashion in order to rise up, with arms and rebel against the tyranny the standing government has imposed.

They understood that "the people," as a body of free individuals, would be able to know when it's time to embark upon such a course. That free men, being free thinkers, who believed in a God, whom has bestowed "unalienable rights" upon them, to make that determination. And they (founding fathers) provided a provision within the Constitution, to allow for such an event.

And that is what makes America the greatest nation in the land. That is what is unique about America over any other nation in the world. That is what is often referred to as "American Exceptionalism."

And for the record. I am in no way encouraging such an action. I would hate to see it come to that. It would rock our nations very foundation to the core. It would forever alter the course and foundation of this great nation. The founding fathers knew that. They understood it. And yet, they still wrote a provision which allows us to do it. Because they too, were free men. And free thinkers, who believed in God, and the "unalienable rights" bestowed upon all free men, from God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dben002

There are a few here who need to take a Xanax and chill out. There are a few who need to remove your heads from the sand and look around.

No one is coming for your guns....repeat that until you understand it. ...

Yes, there may be a change in certain laws that will say you can't be found in possession of certain type weapons, or ammo but that exist now. You will have a very expensive paperweight you can't be caught with so you will just need to keep it hidden but they are not coming for it or you until you use it...

Some here seem to think they can't survive without massive firepower in their basements....that any weapons restriction is an infringement on there right to bear arms. Well sorry you can't have hand grenades, Rocket launchers, and 50 cal's on the back your jeep wranglers.

There are limits to all the rights we have...besides, if you're not happy living here you can always move to another country, or Ill......

---

I'll chip in on your 1-way ticket.