U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2019, 02:24 PM
 
3,382 posts, read 1,912,913 times
Reputation: 2469

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
First of all they were all over 21 and adults. Second, you are from upstate NY, right? Did you personally know anyone who died there on 9/11? I do.

Assualt rifles to protect against tyrannical government? Are you prepared to shoot your fellow citizens as well who do not agree with you precisely what is a tyrannical government to YOU?

You are advocating another Civil War where you can subject your views on the rest of society. I would consider YOUR views a tyrannical government.
First of all I was replying to post #335 by "shanv3" who referred to the 9/11 terrorists as a bunch of "Saudi Kids". Not me, as I was infuriated by that comment. I guess you didn't read it?

You should first read my post #350 on this page, before lecturing me.

I'm not advocating anything, only pointing out what a fallacy it is for people to believe that the military would be used to destroy their own country. It would be mutually assured destruction. There will be no winners.

I would consider the use of force to ban, confiscate, arrest, prosecute and criminalize one's LAWFULLY owned property or activities because of the acts committed by another an act of tyranny by government. That unto itself would be unconstitutional under Ex Post Facto statutes that are written into the constitution:
Quote:
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "It is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
If anything it's people like you who are willing to subject your views on the rest of society. Using the force of government to do your dirty work. I'm not violating any laws and I'm not in any way responsible for the acts committed by others. I believe in Constitutional law and just want to be left the hell alone. See below:

Quote:
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.

This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.

As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.

This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.

So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.

It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives 
on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in
order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.

There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski

Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 08-15-2019 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:22 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,484 posts, read 11,755,689 times
Reputation: 13501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
All those incidents you mentioned could have ended peacefully in the courts if they didn't chose to use their weapons. The Bundy's lost in court and didn't like the decision so chose to invite people to the ranch. Yes the confrontation could have ended badly if the BLM didn't chose to back off, lets not try to change history and portray him as being right.

Imagine if those students at Kent State also had guns, what do you suppose would be the outcome with a green national guard and teenage students, nothing good.

It rarely ends well when citizens who choose to use weapons when they don't like court decisions. I don't worry that I need a weapon in preparation for the coming government attack.

LOL. You're struggling a little pard. To start here, I am not arming for any pending government attack either. I'm just saying there's a long and dirty history there and I don't trust them sumbucks. Secondly what Floorist said. Where was the option for a court date at Kent State, Ruby Ridge and with the Davidians as well? The feds started shooting straight away just because they thought they could get away with it. They murdered American citizens in cold blood and with malice.


And as far as Bundy went of course the courts ruled for the plaintiff, and that was who again? Harry slimeball Reid was a big player in that. He wanted the land in question for a land deal with the Chinese. There was also an issue of water rights that he wanted to sew up for Clark county.


And there's Bundy. Another pesky homesteader in the way of big money interests involving big corps and politicians. Oh you can sing about the court decision all you like. But that doesn't mean it was right and Bundy was wrong. The courts decided against the homesteaders whos land the railroad, mining and cattle barons wanted too. And DC rented them the Army to enforce that. Does that mean that the government and big money were right? Just because current revised history says so?


Anyway just because I don't trust the government doesn't mean I'm arming against a coming coup. It may well happen one day but it's not my primary concern. Defense against wild animals both two and four legged are my biggest concern. I have had to use lethal force against both. I call human varmints "bipreds." Plus if the cops think they need to be as well heeled as they are my semi auto only AR is quite reasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:27 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,437 posts, read 6,489,580 times
Reputation: 12018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
1) The oath taken by enlisted members: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath taken by officers: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name), that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of (grade) in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

They took an oath to follow the command of the POTUS.

I do not believe all military members would follow that order if it meant firing on their own people, but I wouldn't gamble that all of them would lay down their arms.

2) You don't see a government beating up its people in France? REALLY? Have you not been paying attention to what has been going on in France for months now? You don't see it, eh?

3) Hi tech weapons, and yet we still lose military members who are stationed overseas in war zones, or in their peace keeping efforts. We just lost some the other day. Those hi tech weapons don't protect everyone.

4) How naive of you to think that not allowing law abiding citizens to have AKs will prevent bad people from getting them. This isn't Unicorn Island. And that argument falls flat on its face every single time. It's stated as if the people who say it actually care about the law abiding citizens, when in reality, it's a pathetic excuse to take guns away from them. No one believes anyone who says, "We just want to prevent the bad guys from getting them" = see: Eric Holder "Fast and Furious". Yeah, he was just so damned concerned, wasn't he? See: Al Quaeda. I wonder who armed them.
That is NOT the oath of office sworn by commissioned officers; I know because I am one and have sworn the oath. We do not pledge to follow the orders of anyone.

The proper oath of office as administered to military officers today is as follows:

Quote:
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:37 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,484 posts, read 11,755,689 times
Reputation: 13501
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanv3 View Post
You just proved my point. Worrying about the impossible and failing to see whats available in plain sight.

Being rude and getting personal isnt a new thing for you guys.

I too wish your fears come true while you are trying to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.

And remember , if the government needs arms there is Boeing, Raytheon or Lockheed to supply them. They wouldnt care about your AR-15s

Oh but they would indeed care about folks with ARs. Or do you really think they will lay waste to entire sections of city and countryside in an effort to forcibly take those weapons? Drones and high ech aircraft would be useless. It's the alphabet agencies problem, not the military's.


LOL, such thinking as that is truly a fallacy. Now, I don't wish you any harm from some terrorist attack or anything, so there's no need for you and I to go there. Just sayin". That being said it is quite likely that both you and I would die if Raytheon, Lockheed, or McDonnel Douglas were turned loose. Along with a LOT of other people. And I don't sweat the alphabet agencies trying to go door to door. They don't even have the resources for that.


NZ banned and called for turn in of all service style weapons. They threw a party and nobody came. They can't enforce that and they just have thousands of people who own those types of weapons. In the US there are tens of millions. If not hundreds or close to it. LMAO some confiscation effort by the feds or states doesn't concern me. They can bluster and threaten but one word sums it up. Impotence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,843 posts, read 49,724,076 times
Reputation: 19314
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
That is NOT the oath of office sworn by commissioned officers;
She quoted the US servicemembers oath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
35,506 posts, read 19,492,919 times
Reputation: 21112
Where does this crazy talk of "protecting yourself from the government" come from?

What lunatic right fringe keeps spouting that fountain of bs?

I have my suspicions.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Long Island
33,576 posts, read 14,156,758 times
Reputation: 7191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Weaver did not break any laws. His family was attacked by the FBI for no reason. He had no chance to go to court. Those at Kent State were peacefully protesting and were murdered by agents of the US.
Weaver resisted arrest, he could have easily turned himself into the authorities. I'm not dismissing the FBI total misjudgment, they were wrong in their actions. Those were not "government agents" that shot the Kent State students, they were very green national guardsmen that overreacted to the situation.


So these are the incidents that justify gun ownership of military style weapons, we need to tolerate 15,000 murders each year in case the government attacks us,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 05:51 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,484 posts, read 11,755,689 times
Reputation: 13501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Where does this crazy talk of "protecting yourself from the government" come from?

What lunatic right fringe keeps spouting that fountain of bs?

I have my suspicions.


Government coup does come up a lot. More than it has to IMHO. Now, I don't trust the government. State or federal. They are a gaggle of dirty, slimy, power and money grubbing sleaze balls. hey use the alphabet agencies to enforce their backroom deals with big money to take our land, and are always passing legislation to give them power via LE to confiscate personal and real property under asset forfeiture laws without any evidence or due process.


The Patriot Act was one such piece of major legislation that snuck the taking of assets without due process in the name of national security and public safety. And people cheered. Personally I cringed when Bush rolled that out. And now it has been expanded into a monster. The Dems and Pubs both just love it. Red flag laws are much the same.


So I don't have any faith or trust in government at all. Still, I have more immediate concerns that involve my firearms. Resistance and defense against an ever growing criminal threat that is armed and violent with the intent of doing my loved ones and me harm at any opportunity. Any place anytime. I've said this a lot. But it is usually ignored and the whole resistance to government coup and oppression I focused on.


The gun owner haters are fond of saying that times have changed and we need to shift focus. I agree. Times have indeed changed and government oppression is a far smaller threat than criminal oppression. In the 19th century the government was a tyrannical monster. DC supported all the big money interests and helped them actively to oppress people in the name of Manifest Destiny.


People were massacred wholesale with full government support so the railroads, big mining, and rich cattle barons could grab land, water, mineral assets whatever the big money wanted. And we didn't fight another revolution. People were quite war weary on the heels of the civil war. And the Union victory didn't give up any power ceded to the government when the war ended.


The big money use armies of hired thug gun hands a lot, but the powers that be in DC gave them active support from the army a well. This continued well into the 20th century. And it still goes on but we haven't fallen into another civil war yet.


And probably won't. But we still have an immediate threat from violent criminals. The gangs are a biggy. They are cartel foot soldiers who have invaded and occupied territory on our soil and carry out severely violent operations every single day.


Truly I have more and better things to think about than a government system that has been operating as they do for a long time. They may well step over the line in to big a way one day. But it's not this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Out West
22,970 posts, read 17,007,313 times
Reputation: 26573
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
That is NOT the oath of office sworn by commissioned officers; I know because I am one and have sworn the oath. We do not pledge to follow the orders of anyone.

The proper oath of office as administered to military officers today is as follows:



https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html
https://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/Port...-28-105136-647

National Guard officers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2019, 06:08 PM
 
10,258 posts, read 6,402,416 times
Reputation: 8539
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Thank God the Founding Fathers knew better, and had the foresight to create the second amendment.
Amen to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top