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.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. You are not following my point, but I totally acknowledge, it's my own fault.
I understand why the right to bear arms was originally enshrined in our nations origins and Constitution. I know it has nothing to do with hunting, sport, or recreation. But arguments based on that, it has been argued, sometimes by me, have little to do with the present day and age. Here's why... You, Mister Private Gun Owner, are not going to defend yourself or your community against tyranny by the US Government. It might make you feel well endowed to strut about saying that you are upholding those principles with your personal arsenal, but how well did that serve them in Waco? If the might of the US military is ever aimed at you, all you can do is die a martyr, no matter how many guns you've collected. And I am sure you're not dumb enough to think otherwise.
Let me put it to you this way. It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. They'd have to obliterate every single town, village, city and neighborhood. If so the military would have to destroy their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. If the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories, farm the fields and deliver the supplies. All commerce would come to a grinding halt.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. With a continental land mass of 3,800,000 square miles they just don't have the manpower to search every home throughout the United States. Not too mention all of the remote areas that hardly anyone knows even exist. Indeed there are tens of thousands of people who live in these places throughout the United States. The armed civilian population are scattered all over the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. It would be impossible for the military to declare and enforce Martial Law throughout the entire United States.
The armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. According to Wikipedia, there are 1,477,896 active and 1,458,500 reserve personal in the US Armed Forces. This includes Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I'd be willing to bet that at least 75% of those who serve in the military are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law same for state and local law enforcement personnel. My guess is that the majority of service members would disobey orders, and in all probability would use their weapons against those that ordered them to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government. The first to go would be the politicians that gave the orders.
There would be a guerrilla war. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
I don't think that you've thought this out very well?
Why are libs always so patronizing and insulting? "Well endowed"? "Mr. Private Gun Owner"? "Strut around"? Can't libs ever debate without juvenile insults?
Well here we go, first what you feel I can or can't do is meaningless to me. If I believe my gun will protect me from a tyrannical government, that's good enough. I don't care if you believe it or not. You don't? Don't buy a gun. That works for me. I wont try to get you to, and wont use mine to protect you. But, leave me and my constitutional rights alone.
I don't care what happened in your life, it has zero effect on mine.
Don't care what you are comfortable with. Again it has zero to do with me and my right to bear arms. I won't bore you with personal stories, because they have nothing to do with you, but I don't care about yours either.
If you do not support the 2nd Amendment as written, then you oppose it. There are only two sides to the gun debate. Either infringement or not. There is no mountain lion clause, no bear exemption and no moose addendum's. The 2nd Amendment is clear, and being eroded every day by fence sitters who want to argue hunting, target shooting or the fact they had muskets then instead of Glocks and AR-15's. They also had feather quill pens and ink wells. Does the 1st Amendment now become outdated because the founding fathers did't have internet and keyboards? I'd argue the propaganda of government controlled newsprint has killed many times that of any privately owned firearms.
Obviously not. I see fit to arm myself, and not with a bear gun. I see fit to be the barrier to home invasion and if necessary to try to stand up to tyranny by joining a state militia. I see fit to live my life enjoying the rights many of our past American patriots died to protect.
Well it took a while, but at least we agree on that.
Heaven help us all if Trump wins again!! I don't think he'll win. He screwed up big thinking this virus was a hoax and delaying action. All he cares about is big corporations. He doesn't relate to the middle class and surely doesn't care about them. He only wants to re-open the States to boost the economy so he can toot his own horn. He just said he hopes to start rally's soon! Ridiculous! I just hope there isn't a second surge due to his stupidity! It's quite sad!
At any rate, I wouldn't be shocked if my current Red State turns blue in November! People don't trust Trump here anymore.
You've certainly got your talking points down pat. Trump never called the virus a hoax. Why don't you do some research instead of making a fool out of yourself? Yet you wonder why people don't trust the media and people like you who cling on to their lies even when they are proven to be false. People don't trust Liberals anymore or their mouth pieces in the media.
Quote:
Did President Trump Refer to the Coronavirus as a 'Hoax'? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...-rally-remark/
Mar 02, 2020 · Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax, as the context of his remarks makes clear.
FACT CHECK: Did Trump Call The Coronavirus A ‘Hoax’ At His ... https://checkyourfact.com/2020/02/29...arolina-rally/
Trump denied that he called the coronavirus a “hoax” in a Feb. 29 press conference. He said he was “referring to the action that they take to try and pin this on somebody because we’ve done such a good job. The hoax is on them.
Reporter apologizes and deletes tweet claiming Trump called ... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...navirus-a-hoax
"The full quote shows Trump is criticizing Democratic talking points and the media’s coverage of his administration’s response to coronavirus," the fact check reads. "He never says that the virus...
Did President Donald Trump Call Coronavirus a Hoax? | Heavy.com https://heavy.com/news/2020/04/did-p...avirus-a-hoax/
Apr 01, 2020 · He never says that the virus itself is a hoax.” ... AOC just repeated the lie that President Trump called coronavirus a "hoax." This is not true, and has been debunked by numerous fact checking ...
You've certainly got your talking points down pat. Trump never called the virus a hoax. Why don't you do some research instead of making a fool out of yourself? Yet you wonder why people don't trust the media and people like you who cling on to their lies even when they are proven to be false. People don't trust Liberals anymore or their mouth pieces in the media.
Trump is a terrible president. Whether he leaves office on January 20, 2021 or on January 20, 2025, I will promise you one thing: The day he leaves, I'm getting out a champagne bottle and celebrating.
For starters, Mike Pence is the last person who should be heading up the coronavirus effort. It should be a respected scientist or physician instead. Second Trump has blatantly contradicted himself so many times during this crisis, I'm surprised anyone listens to anything he has to say. Third, his lack of experience in government shows. He doesn't seem to understand anything about the role of the federal government and state governments. Fourth, his daily press briefings are nothing, but a blatant attempt to energize his base which is the only thing he has done in the last three + years in office.
But go ahead, Go ahead and blame lib-ur-als and the "MSM" and you guys want to call it. The real problem is Trump and a majority of people see it.
Funny how a guy with such a great economy could be roughly six points behind the opposing candidate. Oh, I'm sure you think all these polls are part of a "media conspiracy" too.
Let me put it to you this way. It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. They'd have to obliterate every single town, village, city and neighborhood. If so the military would have to destroy their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. If the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories, farm the fields and deliver the supplies. All commerce would come to a grinding halt.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. With a continental land mass of 3,800,000 square miles they just don't have the manpower to search every home throughout the United States. Not too mention all of the remote areas that hardly anyone knows even exist. Indeed there are tens of thousands of people who live in these places throughout the United States. The armed civilian population are scattered all over the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. It would be impossible for the military to declare and enforce Martial Law throughout the entire United States.
The armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. According to Wikipedia, there are 1,477,896 active and 1,458,500 reserve personal in the US Armed Forces. This includes Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I'd be willing to bet that at least 75% of those who serve in the military are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law same for state and local law enforcement personnel. My guess is that the majority of service members would disobey orders, and in all probability would use their weapons against those that ordered them to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government. The first to go would be the politicians that gave the orders.
There would be a guerrilla war. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
I don't think that you've thought this out very well?
I absolutely have. This country's government (whether you're talking the local police, the State National Guard or Federal level authorities) HAS already, at times, decided to go after certain particular American citizens. And no one rose up to stop them. Because I'm not talking about the government going door-to-door to get everybody. Why on earth would they? I'm talking about them convincing many/most Americans that there are these GOOD Americans who deserve rights and freedoms, and these other BAD people who don't, then they target the "bad" ones, maybe cobble together some criminal charges against them...plant some evidence, and everybody will nod and say "Well those were bad people. They must have deserved that."
Do you truly believe, that communities will stand in cohesion against a common enemy? Whether that enemy is the government, police, a virus, or anything? We've been splintered apart to the point that you and others here think I actually want your gun rights infringed upon. You think of me as more of an enemy than the government. And in my opinion, the only reason this could be, is that you are of a particular demographic that has yet to feel truly threatened by agents of government at any level. But when the crap hits the fan, it tends to be every citizen for themselves, and they will worry more about standing out and getting taken down, the safety of their own families, kids, than they will getting mixed up in a war to help you on principle.
You cannot possibly think that our government has never taken out an American citizen in a generally unlawful, contrived, or secretive way, can you? I mean all the way down to cops shooting black kids for playing with TOY guns, the way they never would a white kid in a suburb? Are you for real with this?
Are you unfamiliar with the Ruby Ridge case? I mean, arguably and according to some sources, Randy Weaver wasn't a good person (by my own standards at least) but he was acquitted of the charges that led to the actions taken by federal authorities, and a federal sniper was indicted, before the case was moved to a higher court, where charges were dropped. Randy was (legally) armed, but it sure did not save his dog, or his wife, or his son. Oh, and the sniper who got let off the hook for the manslaughter charges, one of the reasons was that it was said he was a federal agent acting in that capacity and therefore immune to prosecution. So there ya go. Even the government says that their people can gun you down and not be held to any accountability. As for reasons, sure, Randy and his friend who was also there, expressed some pretty odious sentiments, and maybe the Feds had cause to investigate, watch, and plan an arrest. But the way they did so, they crept up on the guy's cabin when his whole family including small children were there, when the dog barked, they shot it, when his teenage son came to investigate, they shot him in the back and killed him. After a brief exchange of fire, the two men were running for cover and the sniper fired into the house, injuring one and also killing Randy's wife. At no time were they offered the choice to stand down and surrender during all of this.
So no, the government can't get all of us, and why would they want to? Obviously, it is our labors and consumption that keeps those who run the government in power and wealth. But can they take out anyone that they particularly want to? Oh yeah, they can. And your guns aren't going to stop them.
You've certainly got your talking points down pat. Trump never called the virus a hoax. Why don't you do some research instead of making a fool out of yourself? Yet you wonder why people don't trust the media and people like you who cling on to their lies even when they are proven to be false. People don't trust Liberals anymore or their mouth pieces in the media.
This is very telling, and it illustrates the problem I've got with the politics of today very well.
According to Gallup, 29% of Americans identify as Democrats, 30% as Republicans and 39% as Independent. When the Independents were asked if they lean Democrat or Republican, and they added the "leaners" to those statistics, it comes out that 47% are Democrats or "lean" that way, and 46% are Republican or "lean" that way.
You say, "People don't trust Liberals" as though a good half or so of Americans who have any alignment either way, are not in fact liberal themselves. Are they not also People? If you mean that conservatives don't trust liberals, well fine. I assure you that the sentiment goes both ways.
The issue that I have is when someone on either side thinks that all or most of America thinks, speaks, looks, and behaves just like them. No one of us gets to be the poster child for this country. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, and as legislated and ruled upon since the founding of our nation, they are supposed to belong to all of us. The government is supposed to function on the behalf of the people of this country, not half or less than half of us.
Can I ask, would you be happy if this nation ended up having another civil war, or if it broke into multiple sovereign states due to these deep fractures in ideology, and inability to civilly engage with the other side and accept them as fellow Americans with the same rights, freedoms, and obligations that you have?
Or does, perhaps, "resisting tyranny by owning guns" mean slavering for a civil war where you (the conservative gun owners, as those of them I know crow about how they have guns and liberals don't--which isn't true, but OK) get to kill or subjugate everyone who disagrees with you on what America should look and be like, and how it should be led? Are you itching for a one-party system, and the destruction of a diverse America where we can think, speak, and be as we wish and as we are, where everyone looks like you, worships like you, talks like you, lives like you?
I'm reminded of a GWAR lyric. "Freedom for ALL the people, UNLESS I THINK YOU'RE WRONG!"
I'd really like to hope it ain't like that. But man, sometimes I wonder.
I tend to argue on behalf of rights and freedoms for all Americans even when I strongly disagree with them, even when I find them repugnant, for instance, it is said that Weaver was a white supremacist and that is revolting to me, yet I argue his right to safely be as revolting as he wants, he has freedom of speech even if it's obscene to the sensibilities of a decent person, and I'll defend his freedom if not his ideas. I think you're wrong about the practical real-life reasons to own guns, yet you have the Constitutional right to have them and I have and will argue that among liberals, as I believe that it is sacred. That right is fundamental to the heart and soul of this country. I wish it were more equally applied, if anything.
But that kind of consideration, I see as vanishing on the extremes of both sides. And the extremes being promoted and fed to us, until we think that anyone who disagrees with us is the worst kind of stupid, or brainwashed, or lazy, entitled, hysterical, racist, sexist, just the worst of the worst. But I know lots of people and interact with more face to face than on the internet, and I KNOW that most Americans are not extremist lunatics. Again, I think that the more extreme you are and the more threatened you feel by opposing viewpoints, the more you've fallen for the great scam, you'll be a good little foot soldier for the breaking and destruction of this nation.
I distrust the algorithms, the news, the forces pushing us to the extremes like that, more than I distrust conservatives. They are my fellow Americans, after all.
Trump is a terrible president. Whether he leaves office on January 20, 2021 or on January 20, 2025, I will promise you one thing: The day he leaves, I'm getting out a champagne bottle and celebrating.
For starters, Mike Pence is the last person who should be heading up the coronavirus effort. It should be a respected scientist or physician instead. Second Trump has blatantly contradicted himself so many times during this crisis, I'm surprised anyone listens to anything he has to say. Third, his lack of experience in government shows. He doesn't seem to understand anything about the role of the federal government and state governments. Fourth, his daily press briefings are nothing, but a blatant attempt to energize his base which is the only thing he has done in the last three + years in office.
But go ahead, Go ahead and blame lib-ur-als and the "MSM" and you guys want to call it. The real problem is Trump and a majority of people see it.
Funny how a guy with such a great economy could be roughly six points behind the opposing candidate. Oh, I'm sure you think all these polls are part of a "media conspiracy" too.
Trump is an excellent president. Whether he leaves office on January 20, 2021 or on January 20, 2025, I will promise you one thing: The day he leaves, I'm getting out a champagne bottle and celebrating how great America became under his administration.
For starters, Mike Pence is the best person to be heading up the coronavirus effort. It should not be a scientist or physician instead; they don't know how to manage. Second Trump has displayed good leadership so many times during this crisis, I'm surprised anyone would not listen to anything he has to say. Third, his lack of experience in government shows. He tries to get things done, honestly and forthrightly, unlike a politician who is only in it for personal gain. Fourth, his daily press briefings are informative and inspirational, unlike Biden and the other Democrats, who blatant attempt to energize their base but accomplish nothing.
But go ahead, Go ahead and blame conservatives.
Funny how people believe these polls which are just a few hundred or a thousand people and do not really cover the entire country.
Combing through the detailed election results it looks like there always specks of blue in deep-red states. Take West Virginia for example, which one of the most deep-red states in the country. The top three towns, in population, Charleston, Huntington, and Morgantown, all had their city areas go to Hillary Clinton. Note, they are all tiny cities with Charleston being largest of them with only about 50,000.
You see the same pattern in other deep-red states like South Carolina. Where again its largest city (Columbia) has only 120,000 people but votes very democratic.
None of these cities really are urban-like you expect of a large metro packed with people. I would expect perfect kind of small cities republicans can speak to but somehow they don't manage to?
Because the Democrats in those states are likely more conservative in their politics than the national party.
No, that doesn't explain it.
It is true that politicians often accommodate local politics. This explains Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD and many others. In other words, both parties do it. So the explanation that Democrats are reacting to local politics in, say, Charleston or Columbia, but Republicans are not, really doesn't explain it. Why would Republicans not do so?
I was unable to glean much about West Virginia, as their lousy Secretary of State website has no precinct level data and I can't find city-level vote data for other office as comparison. But let's look at Columbia.
Almost all of the city of Columbia is in South Carolina's 6th Congressional District, which has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of Democrat +19. There is no district in all of Congress in which someone of the 'other party' represents a district with a +12 (the 'other' way) or greater Cook PVI. And if you look at a map of the district, most of it is well southeast of the capital, which was gerrymandered into the 6th for the very specific reason of stacking as many Democrats as possible into one district, sacrificing that district to the Democrats while making all the surrounding districts reliably Republican. Shoehorning Columbia into SC-6 is evidence of its strong Democratic basis. Another view is of Richland County, of which Columbia is the county seat. In 2016, the Democratic Party got 72.6% of all straight-ticket votes, the Republican Party 24.1%. Clinton beat Trump there 64.0% to 31.1%.
These are not traits which suggest that Columbia is either conservative or moderate, and is being picked off by ConservaDem mayoral candidates. Those are traits that suggest Columbia is solidly liberal and has Democratic mayors for that reason.
As an aside, the converse is often true. Just as red states often have blue bastions in cities, blue states typically have red bastions in non-urban areas.
Trump is a terrible president. Whether he leaves office on January 20, 2021 or on January 20, 2025, I will promise you one thing: The day he leaves, I'm getting out a champagne bottle and celebrating.
For starters, Mike Pence is the last person who should be heading up the coronavirus effort. It should be a respected scientist or physician instead. Second Trump has blatantly contradicted himself so many times during this crisis, I'm surprised anyone listens to anything he has to say. Third, his lack of experience in government shows. He doesn't seem to understand anything about the role of the federal government and state governments. Fourth, his daily press briefings are nothing, but a blatant attempt to energize his base which is the only thing he has done in the last three + years in office.
But go ahead, Go ahead and blame lib-ur-als and the "MSM" and you guys want to call it. The real problem is Trump and a majority of people see it.
Funny how a guy with such a great economy could be roughly six points behind the opposing candidate. Oh, I'm sure you think all these polls are part of a "media conspiracy" too.
Obama was a terrible president. When he left office on January 20, 2016 I got out a champagne bottle and began celebrating.
For starters, Joe Biden is the last person who should be heading anything. Political corruption runs deep in the Biden family. Second Obama has blatantly contradicted himself so many times. I'm surprised anyone listens to anything he had to say? Third, his lack of experience in government showed. He doesn't seem to understand anything about the role of the federal government and state governments. His press briefings were nothing, but a blatant attempt to energize his base which is the only thing he has done in his eight years in office.
But go ahead, Go ahead and blame Republicans and "Faux news" as you guys want to call it. The real problem was Obama and a majority of people saw it. That's what got Trump elected.
I could write almost the exact same things that you wrote about Obama and every Democrat that has ever held public office. So what's your point?
I absolutely have. This country's government (whether you're talking the local police, the State National Guard or Federal level authorities) HAS already, at times, decided to go after certain particular American citizens. And no one rose up to stop them. Because I'm not talking about the government going door-to-door to get everybody. Why on earth would they? I'm talking about them convincing many/most Americans that there are these GOOD Americans who deserve rights and freedoms, and these other BAD people who don't, then they target the "bad" ones, maybe cobble together some criminal charges against them...plant some evidence, and everybody will nod and say "Well those were bad people. They must have deserved that."
Do you truly believe, that communities will stand in cohesion against a common enemy? Whether that enemy is the government, police, a virus, or anything? We've been splintered apart to the point that you and others here think I actually want your gun rights infringed upon. You think of me as more of an enemy than the government. And in my opinion, the only reason this could be, is that you are of a particular demographic that has yet to feel truly threatened by agents of government at any level. But when the crap hits the fan, it tends to be every citizen for themselves, and they will worry more about standing out and getting taken down, the safety of their own families, kids, than they will getting mixed up in a war to help you on principle.
You cannot possibly think that our government has never taken out an American citizen in a generally unlawful, contrived, or secretive way, can you? I mean all the way down to cops shooting black kids for playing with TOY guns, the way they never would a white kid in a suburb? Are you for real with this?
Are you unfamiliar with the Ruby Ridge case? I mean, arguably and according to some sources, Randy Weaver wasn't a good person (by my own standards at least) but he was acquitted of the charges that led to the actions taken by federal authorities, and a federal sniper was indicted, before the case was moved to a higher court, where charges were dropped. Randy was (legally) armed, but it sure did not save his dog, or his wife, or his son. Oh, and the sniper who got let off the hook for the manslaughter charges, one of the reasons was that it was said he was a federal agent acting in that capacity and therefore immune to prosecution. So there ya go. Even the government says that their people can gun you down and not be held to any accountability. As for reasons, sure, Randy and his friend who was also there, expressed some pretty odious sentiments, and maybe the Feds had cause to investigate, watch, and plan an arrest. But the way they did so, they crept up on the guy's cabin when his whole family including small children were there, when the dog barked, they shot it, when his teenage son came to investigate, they shot him in the back and killed him. After a brief exchange of fire, the two men were running for cover and the sniper fired into the house, injuring one and also killing Randy's wife. At no time were they offered the choice to stand down and surrender during all of this.
So no, the government can't get all of us, and why would they want to? Obviously, it is our labors and consumption that keeps those who run the government in power and wealth. But can they take out anyone that they particularly want to? Oh yeah, they can. And your guns aren't going to stop them.
I think that you've missed the entire point of my post? My post has nothing to do with the government going after "certain particular American citizens". Its what may happen if the government were to abolish the 2nd Amendment making the possession of all firearms illegal and criminalizing all of their lawful owners. Then sending the military and law enforcement agencies out to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate the hundred million or so Americans that lawfully own a firearm.
Some 22,000 people armed with all types of firearms from AR-15's to handguns showed up in Richmond, Virginia to protest the Democrat's proposed draconian gun control laws. Not a shot was fired and there were no incidences of violence. Why didn't Northam call out the National Guard then? Now just try to imagine that on a national scale in every state, county, city, and town throughout the United States? Based on that I do believe that "communities will stand in cohesion against a common enemy".
Quote:
You cannot possibly think that our government has never taken out an American citizen in a generally unlawful, contrived, or secretive way, can you? I mean all the way down to cops shooting black kids for playing with TOY guns, the way they never would a white kid in a suburb? Are you for real with this?
Of course I don't think that. Or are you trying to think for me? You're putting word's in my mouth, just where did I even mention anything like that? However you are making a compelling case as to why we need the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't sound like you have much faith and trust in the government either?
In fact I do think that anyone who wishes to abolish the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law is indeed the enemy. I don't know you personally to know what you truly believe? Do you fall under that category? It's not just the 2nd Amendment that we will lose it's all of the other rights that we will lose in order to enforce these measures if they are ever to become law. Not the least of which is "due process" and the elimination of ex post facto laws which are written into the Constitution.
Quote:
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
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, "[i]t 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
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
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.
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.
