Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes Pledges to Resist Any Assault Weapons Ban - Hundreds Agree...

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon

Originally posted by DaTroof
So they take an oath to defend the Constitution, but cry when there is public support for Constitutionally repealing an amendment?

They don't really understand what the Constitution is, do they?

It is irrelevant if there is "public support to repeal the 2nd amendment." This fallacy that "we are a democracy" is ridiculous. Some things cannot be voted on in our republic, our natural born rights happen to be one of those things.

I never said we live in a democracy.

Natural born rights, except for y'know... letting blacks be considered citizens or allowing women to vote. Oh, those natural born rights weren't in the OG Constitution? The Constitution is a living document, and susceptible to alteration. It's time to get rid of guns.

I'm glad you think it's time to get rid of guns. I'm also glad you have absolutely no power to express that view with meaning outside your own state....and I'll bet you do nothing at that level anyway.

There is no "wide support" for repealing any amendments, let alone the second and I'll sure want more than pure personal opinion to support anything suggesting otherwise. Blogs or no name internet writers don't make authority. Let's see some real Polls that have MORE than 1,000 people in a small geographic area ..or SO widely spread as to be meaningless that way.

As it happens though, I can't defend THIS guy either. He's going too far and making a perfect ass of himself.

It's going to kill credibility in what has struck me as an interesting organization up to now and not entirely good or bad in saying that. However, the time for this guy to have DONE something and not just babbled bumper sticker slogans was when Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation were struggling to fund the fights in Chicago and D.C. cases which set precedent to make our rights safe now. Unfortunately, not quite safe ENOUGH and maybe his help THEN would have meant something. Now? It's blustering a day late and a dollar short.

The fact is, D.C. Vs Heller ABSOLUTELY SAID GUN BANS CAN NEVER HAPPEN. However, that wasn't a total win, either. They also left regulation wide open for interpretation and future legal fighting to determine what that means. Is AWB regulation under the Heller decision? I'm afraid it probably is...

Which means this idiot is actually leading an Organization dedicated to supporting the Constitution while saying that if Congress constitutionally does what the Supreme Court quite legally gave them the opening to do, he will go against the Constitutionally elected and legally acting Government? Err.... I don't like that aspect of the Heller Decision myself....but we have to take both the good and bad and there HAS to be room for reality above partisanship and pure politics going nut job extreme.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DaTroof

 

I never said we live in a democracy.

You don't have to explicitly state it, it was clear from your opinion that you would believe such nonsense.

Natural born rights, except for y'know... letting blacks be considered citizens or allowing women to vote.

You mean, people had prejudices? That must mean we don't have natural born rights. I must have been mistaken. Good logic.

Oh, those natural born rights weren't in the OG Constitution?

The only people who were supposed to have the rights of suffrage were landowners, regardless of gender...and for good reason.

The Federalist Papers

The Constitution is a living document, and susceptible to alteration. It's time to get rid of guns

.

The Bill of Rights cannot be changed. The Federalist Papers.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS???????? Good God man, it's 2012, almost 2013.

No, I don't think this is a democracy. It's a representative republic, and a poorly managed one at that.

I'm done talking to you, since you can't carry out a proper conversation.

reply to post by hawkiye


I haven't heard a peep about repealing any amendments to the constitution, although there is a thread regarding amending the second amendment - to which I replied that a new amendment would have to be passed to repeal an existing amendment.

I'm not sure about a constitutional convention being the only option, as I understand it takes 2/3 of each house of congress to propose an amendment before ratification by the at least 2/3 of the states' legislatures. Only the 21st amendment repealing prohibition (18th) was proposed by congress and written mandating state conventions. The other two methods that begin at the state convention level and are ratified by either states' conventions or their legislatures have never been used.

ganjoa

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Violater1

 

You need a license to drive, which can be revoked if you break enough traffic laws.

The fact that there are so many accidents proves that people can make mistakes, even when vetted and licensed to operate a vehicle. Guns are no different. The safest, most responsible gun owner can make one mistake just like the safest driver.

And that is the price for freedom. You do not trade personal freedom nor liberty for safety or illusion of safety. To do so makes you a coward and in direct conflict of the values this country was founded on and for which our relatives died to achieve.

Life is not a long walk in the park, we all take risks every day and we must all start being accountable for our own safety and piece of mind instead of begging the government to protect us. You want to be safe, take the steps to arm yourself with enough knowledge, courage and means to do what you must if you must and stop begging the government to create a nanny state for the rest of us to bail you out of harms way if it should come.

Being free and enjoying liberty comes at a cost and that cost is having to produce some testicular fortitude and responsibility when it comes to your own personal safety and that of your family, loved ones and property.

reply to post by DaTroof


You seem to be confused between rights and privileges.

You cannot just "raise support" to get rid of someone's rights.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Which means this idiot is actually leading an Organization dedicated to supporting the Constitution while saying that if Congress constitutionally does what the Supreme Court quite legally gave them the opening to do, he will go against the Constitutionally elected and legally acting Government?

This is where you are wrong. You are saying anything the supreme court (SC) says goes and they can never make a mistake or subvert the constitution that is simply false. The saying "what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? is very true. Just because the SC says its legal doesn't make it anymore legit then when King George said taxation without representation was legal...

What if the congress passed a law and the SC ruled that rape was legal would that make it so? According to your logic it would after all they were elected and the SC rubber stamped it...

Electing someone does not give then the authority to violate your rights even if the a majority agrees with them. it's about time someone like Rhodes stood up and said enough is enough!

reply to post by DaTroof

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS???????? Good God man, it's 2012, almost 2013.

Yes, the Federalist Papers. All of these petty arguments that we have over the Constitution and rights vs. Privileges were debated over 200 hundred years ago.

The problem is the fact that, instead of progressing, the United States has moved backwards since the Constitutional debates. We have done things that our forefathers warned us not to.

If the Union were still running the way it was intended to we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

reply to post by hawkiye

I'm not the enemy on this and I didn't make the system...I just have a very solid understanding of how it works and as a matter of fact, the word of the Supreme Court *IS* the Constitution. Quite Literally and in every sense of that. There IS no level above, around or through them and if an issue is brought to them (That's part of the check to balance THEM...they cannot initiate something of their own doing) they then define as the Law of the Land how that issue will fit into the Constitution.

The way some folks have given a casual disregard to who is appointed to the Supreme Court has driven me ABSOLUTELY CRAZY because of this. Those ARE the 9 most powerful people in our nation ....and the only REAL check on them is the fact they can only act on what is brought to them.

Now, in Heller, we got a HUGE Victory and the left would love to steal that and rip it from us. That victory was the absolute declaration of the right to be individual and NOT tied to membership in any militia or organization ...as the citizenry stands as the national militia.

............That's also where they figure the well regulated part comes in and if we get to have guns by saying we are ALLLLLL the militia, well, that cut us a bit both ways didn't it? It means the "well regulated" has to apply to something, right? It does...it applies to everyone. AWB may very well fall into that and I don't like it any more than you do......but if the left can't take our victory out of the decision, unfortunately we can't ignore the loss in it either.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DaTroof

 

You seem to be confused between rights and privileges.

You cannot just "raise support" to get rid of someone's rights.

I agree with you. However, sadly, I believe this has been done in the US for quite a long time, and rather extensively.. The modern prohibition, the futile and costly "war on drugs" being one good example.

Originally posted by DaTroof

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS????????

Good God man, it's 2012, almost 2013.

No, I don't think this is a democracy. It's a representative republic, and a poorly managed one at that.

I'm done talking to you, since you can't carry out a proper conversation.

You're right. That stuff is way OLD. Just like the bill of rights, and the constitution. However, just because something is old, does not make it invalid. Most of your arguments here (or mostly lack thereof) are pretty weak, though I will say that your point about a society needing to keep up with the times is reasonable. However, as LewsTherinThelamon pointed out, rights to freedom do not / should not expire. And one of our rights as supposedly free people is the right to protect ourselves, both on a personal level, and to defend our country. The right to overthrow a tyrannical government is worked in there somewhere as well, as implausible as that seems given current circumstances.

And google hits are like grains of sand on a beach. I can search just about anything and turn up a few hundred thousand results. Also, people "spin" other peoples' articles to try to cash in, so that one online article can spawn hundreds once a shady internet marketer gets their hands on it. To be clear:


There is No major popular support for the repeal of the second amendment.

Some ones got to be the first wave in
we all need inspiration to follow.....dont we

Originally posted by DaTroof
So they take an oath to defend the Constitution, but cry when there is public support for Constitutionally repealing an amendment?

They don't really understand what the Constitution is, do they?

You'd need three quarters of the state legislatures to support it. Good luck with that. The people in most states don't support a full gun ban. In fact, I suspect that you wouldn't get more than a handful of states to sign on, and even that's optimistic for your side.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm not the enemy on this and I didn't make the system...I just have a very solid understanding of how it works and as a matter of fact, the word of the Supreme Court *IS* the Constitution. Quite Literally and in every sense of that. There IS no level above, around or through them and if an issue is brought to them (That's part of the check to balance THEM...they cannot initiate something of their own doing) they then define as the Law of the Land how that issue will fit into the Constitution.

Although I very much enjoy your well thought out posts, I fear that you are off base on this one. The supreme court is NOT the constitution and there IS a level above them. It's us. The founders were very clear on this point. Sovereignty in this country lies in the citizens, not the states and not the federal government. The founders made it very clear that if the government became tyrannical by violating the enumerated rights in the constitution it was our DUTY to overthrow that government by whatever means necessary. Hence the inclusion, and the phrasing, of the second amendment to the constitution.

If the anti gun crowd wants to remove the right to bear arms...perhsaps they should try arming themselves and
Forcing everyone to give them up.........
The fact is they are asking for CIVIL WAR. period.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm not the enemy on this and I didn't make the system...I just have a very solid understanding of how it works and as a matter of fact, the word of the Supreme Court *IS* the Constitution. Quite Literally and in every sense of that. There IS no level above, around or through them and if an issue is brought to them (That's part of the check to balance THEM...they cannot initiate something of their own doing) they then define as the Law of the Land how that issue will fit into the Constitution.

I know you are not the enemy on this and I was not trying to insinuate that. You are correct that it is "the way it works" currently. However that is not the way it is supposed to work. The SC is not the constitution. The constitution is the law they are supposed to abide by. They are not supposed to Interpret the constitution they are suppose to ensure that any new federal law passed adheres to the constitution period. it is a standard to be adhered to not reinterpreted to give government more power it was not delegated. Just like congress they have gone way outside their scope of authority. They have no authority in the states only in the federal government. The constitution was written to restrict the federal government not the people!

There "IS" a level above around and through them! Who created the Federal government and Constitution? Who delegated any authority to Them? THE PEOPLE! We the people created them we are their masters and the level of authority above them! The creation does not have authority over it's creator. We are the highest authority in the land and delegating authority to government does not negate our authority. If our creation fails to do what we designed it to and becomes destructive to our rights and liberties then we have the authority to correct it or abolish it and set up new guards for our liberty.

That is what Stewart Rhodes and Oath keepers are doing they are exercising their authority over government as we the people to correct this wrong that government is perpetrating on us. The Idea that their is no recourse from the SC congress or government in general is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. The American people have largely forgotten who they are and that they are the masters of government not their creation.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by Violater1

 

You need a license to drive, which can be revoked if you break enough traffic laws.

The fact that there are so many accidents proves that people can make mistakes, even when vetted and licensed to operate a vehicle. Guns are no different. The safest, most responsible gun owner can make one mistake just like the safest driver.

And that is the price for freedom. You do not trade personal freedom nor liberty for safety or illusion of safety. To do so makes you a coward and in direct conflict of the values this country was founded on and for which our relatives died to achieve.

Life is not a long walk in the park, we all take risks every day and we must all start being accountable for our own safety and piece of mind instead of begging the government to protect us. You want to be safe, take the steps to arm yourself with enough knowledge, courage and means to do what you must if you must and stop begging the government to create a nanny state for the rest of us to bail you out of harms way if it should come.

Being free and enjoying liberty comes at a cost and that cost is having to produce some testicular fortitude and responsibility when it comes to your own personal safety and that of your family, loved ones and property.

I seriously wish I could star this post several times. This pretty much sums up my sentiments on many of the things the government does. Drugs are illegal because the people can't take responsibility for their actions in using them. Alcohol became illegal in the 20's and 30's for the same reason. We let the government strip rights away from us with the Patriot Act all so we can feel more safe. Now because of a school shooting the government is going to try to do the same thing with our guns. THIS is why our government has become a tyrannical force, because we surrendered our rights to the government so that we can all feel safer. Meanwhile the government becomes more and more bloated with power and we all know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People need to stop willingly letting the government take things from them even if it is something that they don't believe in (alcohol, drugs, guns, etc).

The one thing that has me excited about this whole issue is how heated the pro-gun side is getting about keeping their weapons. Maybe this can help to wake them up to the other liberties that the government has stripped from us.

This the answer to this massacre ISN'T more gun control. Heck I rather believe that even working the mental illness side wouldn't have helped matters either. The fact of the matter is that there are crazies out there who every now and then will snap and try to take as many people out as possible as quickly as possible. They will use whatever means is necessary to do. However at least these people will stop killing once they off themselves or are caught, but in either situation it usually doesn't take long for that to happen.

What about all the crazies who are adjusted enough to go on extended killing sprees and recognize that a gun attracts too much attention? These sickos use weapons such as knives to do their work and are a lot harder to catch. The fact of the matter is that there are mentally twisted people out there and making guns illegal because of a few bad apples is the completely wrong reason.

I do not mean to stir up some s*** but I have to wonder; Why would someone need a fully automatic assault weapon? That kind of gun is usually used to kill a lot of people really fast. How many times does the average person find themselves in that kind of situation during the course of their life?

When I lived in America I had three guns; a shotgun, rifle and a handgun. I never felt the need to own a fully automatic assault gun...ever. Daily life was never so dangerous that I needed the kind of fire power which could kill a mass amount of people at once. I grew up in America and lived there for 27 years and never once did I feel I needed a super high power gun. Are there really places in the USA so dangerous that someone needs a AK-47?

I wonder what the American people will think about their precious guns as they are being shelled from a safe distance, crushed with tanks and blown to smithereens by missiles fired from jets, helicopters and drones?

Actually, they won't be thinking much at all seeing as they just got turned into pink mist.......

reply to post by DaTroof

Outcry for repealing the 2nd Amendment? Where?

Until the Amendment is repealed, which it wont be, hes reaffirming his oath to the Constitution. So Id say he understands it perfectly.

Both Dems and Repubs swear an oath to uphold the same document. Time to purge these liars. Long overdue.

reply to post by freedomwv
"fully automatic assault weapons" are already banned. You cannot buy a full auto anything. These "assault" weapons are nothing more than semi-auto rifles. A deer rifle, say a 30.06, is far more powerful than an AR 15. To some, they look scary, thus the outcry for banning them. A mag change can be done in 3 seconds, so banning 30 round mags would make no difference. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach, and people should not trade essential liberties for perceived temporary safety.

Edit: You can buy full autos, it is not an easy process, and it is costly, along with a rigorous background check and proper licensing. Looks like it may be something worth looking into

Originally posted by freedomwv
I do not mean to stir up some s*** but I have to wonder; Why would someone need a fully automatic assault weapon? That kind of gun is usually used to kill a lot of people really fast. How many times does the average person find themselves in that kind of situation during the course of their life?

When I lived in America I had three guns; a shotgun, rifle and a handgun. I never felt the need to own a fully automatic assault gun...ever. Daily life was never so dangerous that I needed the kind of fire power which could kill a mass amount of people at once. I grew up in America and lived there for 27 years and never once did I feel I needed a super high power gun. Are there really places in the USA so dangerous that someone needs a AK-47?

So you think because you have never felt the need for a certain rifle we should not have the ability to have them? I never felt the need to call the fire department because my house is burning down but I still have insurance in-case it does.

So called military weapons are insurance against tyranny. I hope we never need to use them for that however we need to have them in case we do.

it might be helpful if you read the article in the OP fully.