Does this post advocate violence?

[22Luke36]

Ok, if I'm wrong, how so?

Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Any law, 227 for instance, that keeps a person from being armed with whatever they choose, wherever they choose, however they choose, whenever they choose, is...

unconstitutional.

Anyone at all?

 

[22Luke36]

Any law that is contradictory to the constitution is void, and any government employee that signs enforces it is deserving of a hanging or a firing squad.

That is as pro gun as it gets.

 

[22Luke36]

The Declaration of Independence advocates violence and lawlessness.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Yes.

I now want to punch myself :banghead:

:lol:

1st rule of fight club?

 

[22Luke36]

How does this post advocate violence? Self harm is a different story.

 

[22Luke36]

Any law that is contradictory to the constitution is void, and any government employee that signs enforces it is deserving of a hanging or a firing squad.

That is as pro gun as it gets.

This one does, but then again the people who started this country didn't have a problem killing soldiers.

 

[self preservation]

the people who started this country didn't have a problem killing soldiers.

Do you disagree with them for doing so?

 

[22Luke36]

No.

 

[Primus]

The Declaration of Independence advocates violence and lawlessness.

Any law that is contradictory to the constitution is void, and any government employee that signs enforces it is deserving of a hanging or a firing squad.

That is as pro gun as it gets.

Anyone at all?

Your leaving out the part the YOU don't decide what is constitutional. Read the rest of the document. It lays out exactly who and how determines what's too an not good. It does not say anywhere that you can wake up one morning and decide that marijuana should be legal therefore you can kill any cop that says otherwise.

You are seriously twisting the document and the spirit of it. Not to mention advocating for senseless violence.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[22Luke36]

I don't need an interpreter, it's not Latin. I don't need anyone to interpret "Shall not be infringed" for me.

Burn the constitution and I still have my screen name. That gives me the right, the constitution just gives it a sense of redundancy.

When the tenth amendment gives power to the states and the people, I don't need anyone to tell me what that means. The voters passed a law, the feds are out.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Your leaving out the part the YOU don't decide what is constitutional. Read the rest of the document. It lays out exactly who and how determines what's too an not good. It does not say anywhere that you can wake up one morning and decide that marijuana should be legal therefore you can kill any cop that says otherwise.

You are seriously twisting the document and the spirit of it. Not to mention advocating for senseless violence.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

A common idea pushed by the left in this country that the average person can't read and understand the constitution.

The politicians also push the idea that only the courts can decide leaving them to pass unconstitutional laws then saying see the courts haven't ruled yet how can it be.

It was fairly common before 1900 that juries would decide if a law was constitutional or not. Then we started to get this push that only the courts were knowledgeable enough to do so. If an elected or government employee is not accountable up holding and determining what is constitutional there is no need for a oath of office. Not that many care about their oath to begin with (see the courts haven't ruled it isn't yet)

It is very wrong headed IMHO to not let the people decide through the courts as jurors(jury nullification is a very good thing) that a law is constitutional or not.

If an person decides that a law isn't constitutional he should be able to grieve through the court system and not wait for so called standing. Having to wait for so called standing allows for the damage to go on for years.

Here's a thought on the drug laws if we needed a constitutional amendment to out law alcohol why did we not need one for drugs. If one uses the same arguments for alcohol for drugs all the drug laws are unconditional through a subversion of the commerce clause.

One can go on and on.

 

[77zach]

As HL Mencken said, a judge in a kourt is a just a law school student who grades his own papers. There are tricky and subtle constitutional questions. Federal gun laws and drug laws do not fall into that category. If someone killed an ATF agent or DEA agent while defending himself while the agent was enforcing illegal "laws", if I were on the jury I'd acquit the killer. It would be the right thing to do, and also my duty as a juror, and as a good American citizen.

 

[22Luke36]

+1, 77

 

[Primus]

A common idea pushed by the left in this country that the average person can't read and understand the constitution.

The politicians also push the idea that only the courts can decide leaving them to pass unconstitutional laws then saying see the courts haven't ruled yet how can it be.

It was fairly common before 1900 that juries would decide if a law was constitutional or not. Then we started to get this push that only the courts were knowledgeable enough to do so. If an elected or government employee is not accountable up holding and determining what is constitutional there is no need for a oath of office. Not that many care about their oath to begin with (see the courts haven't ruled it isn't yet)

It is very wrong headed IMHO to not let the people decide through the courts as jurors(jury nullification is a very good thing) that a law is constitutional or not.

If an person decides that a law isn't constitutional he should be able to grieve through the court system and not wait for so called standing. Having to wait for so called standing allows for the damage to go on for years.

Here's a thought on the drug laws if we needed a constitutional amendment to out law alcohol why did we not need one for drugs. If one uses the same arguments for alcohol for drugs all the drug laws are unconditional through a subversion of the commerce clause.

One can go on and on.

Firearms I actually agree with. But what you are advocating is the person taking his issue to court. Then the jury (of citizens) decides that the law is bogus and doesn't convict. This will either cause case law (depending on judge) or the juries will have to keep finding not guilty.

But that is the system as prescribed. That is still NOT waking up one day and on your own deciding to disregard a law and then shooting anyone who tries to stop you.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[22Luke36]

But that is the system as prescribed. That is still NOT waking up one day and on your own deciding to disregard a law and then shooting anyone who tries to stop you.

I'm not saying that anyone should do that.

 

[eye95]

I disagree with the post, but see no advocacy of violence in it at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[22Luke36]

Thank you eye.

What's wrong with it? Bare bones back to basics.

ETA reference MCL 750.227 and article one section six, Michigan Constitution.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5h...eg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-227

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

But when the courts, legislative, and executive branches become corrupted. What is one suppose to do when normal grievance procedures fail.

 

[22Luke36]

According to most people here on the forum, vote, or email a rep.

Haaahahahahaha Like thats going to work.

 

[Primus]

But when the courts, legislative, and executive branches become corrupted. What is one suppose to do when normal grievance procedures fail.

I don't know honestly. But I would say we are a loonnnnggg way from being that bad. We have a media that calls out corrupt cops and politicians. We have tea party politicians that want to impeach Obama because he's tramples the constitution. We have judges that toss anti gun bills and cases. We have juries that find in the favor of victims of abuse and award money to them. Hell there's even this forum where guys gather to get a movement to pass pro gun laws and it works.

Am I saying its perfect? No. But I am saying that its no so "corrupt" that you can't get anything done peacefully.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk