It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[PredFan]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

 

[PredFan]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

This was local. My younger brother, some friends from the gun range, and some of my brothers friends.

 

[Faun]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

Like the Bundy boi's tried? How'd that turn out?

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

 

[Katzndogz]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

Disobedience itself can take many forms. Saying no and not conducting your lives going along to get along.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

 

[P@triot]

Ultimately, it's just sad that liberals can't accept that the American people overwhelmingly reject their radical views. If the American people actually agreed with them, they would have no problem amending the Constitution to make marriage the responsibility of the federal government. Or to make education the responsibility of the federal government. The fact that they can't get the Constitution amended just proves that those left-wing views are not what the American people want.

It's equally sad that they can go live their liberal utopia in one of any number of countries (Cuba, Cambodia, etc.). The fact that they refuse to do so just goes to show that they know they need conservatives to mooch off of for survival.

 

[koshergrl]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

That is absolutely 100% untrue. LOCAL law "trumps" federal law. That is why they hate constitutional sheriffs. The feds can only take action against ppl by express invitation of local authorities. It is why some states have abortion and some don't.

 

[Faun]

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

Complete nonsense. Your grasp on the Constitution is about as firm as your grasp on BLS figures, which you were caught making up.

 

[Faun]

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

Got any audio or are you full of shit?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

 

[PredFan]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

Disobedience itself can take many forms. Saying no and not conducting your lives going along to get along.

The disobedience that I'm talking about will start most likely with refusing to obey gun restrictions. There certainly are a LOT of other pressing issues to be concerned with but restrictions on our2 d Amendment rights will be the one that best suits us as a start.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

Cool,

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Buffalo Springfield - Somethings Happening Here Lyrics | MetroLyrics


You're a hippy, congrats

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

Resistance comes in many forms, the idiot lefties (if you'll pardon the redundancy) here immediately jumped to violence, but the resistance I'm talking about almost certainly will start with simply civil disobedience.

Disobedience itself can take many forms. Saying no and not conducting your lives going along to get along.

The disobedience that I'm talking about will start most likely with refusing to obey gun restrictions. There certainly are a LOT of other pressing issues to be concerned with but restrictions on our2 d Amendment rights will be the one that best suits us as a start.

Well...it's also the most important. Why do you think they are so desperate to disarm the American people? Once they take aways your 2nd Amendment rights, all of your other rights will fall in the blink of an eye.

 

[P@triot]

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

 

[P@triot]

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The "Necessary & Proper Clause" is strictly for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of the federal government. This is so cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. I'm sorry my friend - but you did a better job than even I did for proving the egregious abuse of power on this issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

 

[flacaltenn]

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

And you have Janet Reno stating that if she had KNOWN the Davidians were spreading fuel -- she would have STOPPED the assault. Testimonies vary as to what was actually heard. But either they KNEW the Davidians were spreading fuel and lobbed those incendiary devices ANYWAY or they never heard anything of the sort -- they staged a millitary style attack on civilians without any regard for providing an evac or safety plan.. You love yourself some military justice ---- don't ya???