The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[rightwinger]

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?

I'm allowed more than a one word answer now?

It is not just progressives, it is conservatives

If you pass a law it is constitutional until ruled otherwise. It can be implemented as it works it's way through the courts. If you were damaged you have redress through the court system to be made whole

That is the way our government has worked for 235 years. What are you proposing instead? Second Amendment remedies?

 

[The Gadfly]

Far left or far right. The SLA got what they deserved.

If you can't do the job, troop, resign the commission.

No argument with the SLA (and others), but then, we let civilian law enforcement handle that, didn't we?

 

[rightwinger]

Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes

At least you're honest with your tyranny....

You're the reason why presently this country is so fucked up.

You don't deserve your freedoms...... People died for those ideas and you support a regime that would destroy them with authoritarian fashion...

You're a piece of shit coward and will always be one.... That's a fucking fact.

Read the Constitution you claim to carry with you. It provides roles and responsibilities for each branch of government. It provides for a powerful weapon for we the people to handle government tyranny. Not the gun....but the vote

 

[The Gadfly]

Yes

Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?

I'm allowed more than a one word answer now?

It is not just progressives, it is conservatives

If you pass a law it is constitutional until ruled otherwise. It can be implemented as it works it's way through the courts. If you were damaged you have redress through the court system to be made whole

That is the way our government has worked for 235 years. What are you proposing instead? Second Amendment remedies?

I'm asking how (or IF) you propose rearming the people after you are found to have unconstitutionally disarmed them?

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?

I'm allowed more than a one word answer now?

It is not just progressives, it is conservatives

If you pass a law it is constitutional until ruled otherwise. It can be implemented as it works it's way through the courts. If you were damaged you have redress through the court system to be made whole

That is the way our government has worked for 235 years. What are you proposing instead? Second Amendment remedies?

I'm asking how (or IF) you propose rearming the people after you are found to have unconstitutionally disarmed them?

$$$$$$

 

[The Gadfly]

I'm allowed more than a one word answer now?

It is not just progressives, it is conservatives

If you pass a law it is constitutional until ruled otherwise. It can be implemented as it works it's way through the courts. If you were damaged you have redress through the court system to be made whole

That is the way our government has worked for 235 years. What are you proposing instead? Second Amendment remedies?

I'm asking how (or IF) you propose rearming the people after you are found to have unconstitutionally disarmed them?

$$$$$$

Yeah, which we both know means nothing, if they cannot use the money to buy arms equivalent to those you unconstitutionally deprived them of. By the time the SCOTUS ruled against you, the firearms dealers would be out of business, the government and law enforcement would have contracts for all domestic production, and you'd use U.N. small arms treaties to prevent importation. It would cost you, but the American people would be disarmed, and totally at the mercy of government, a trade any statist would be happy to make. Slick, but utterly transparent, which is why, if you try it, you'll likely have widespread resistance to contend with. That resistance would not have to be violent; it could range from hiding weapons, to passive resistance to all voluntary cooperation with government (the path I prefer). What are you going to do, when the people figure out that no more than 30-40% of us can bring the country to a screeching halt? What; you thought only the Left paid attention to what can be done with large-scale civil disobedience? There's more than one way to fight you people. The Left in America has some built-in vulnerabilities, and I can assure you there are people who have put considerable thought into how to exploit those for maximum effect, if we really need to; and I don't think even people like Jake will obey orders to shoot unarmed people. (I KNOW I wouldn't!) Your and Obama's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is far from a done deal.

 

[MikeK]

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

No doubt about it.

And that is exactly why the conniving dolt did not employ such think tanks. The 9/11 attack was a joyous occurrence for Bush and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he was well aware something of that nature was coming, which is why he replaced Richard Clark with Condoleeza Rice and why he paid no attention to FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's (et al) anxious warnings. He wanted it to happen!

George W. Bush is one of American history's worst criminals and the sonofabitch should be turned over to the World Court -- which already has indicted him in absentia as a war criminal!

Yes, these 'Think-Tanks' will be the death of us.

Why? Do you advocate moving forward in major situations without as much in-depth thought and consideration as possible?

Such reasoning is why the Libertarians never have and never will progress beyond a certain point. They have some good ideas but they seem to not give any thought to those ideas they hold strongly to but simply are not feasible. Such as the notion that a society as massive and complex as the U.S. could survive without the constraints and controls of a proportionately sizeable (but well controlled) government and adequate taxation.

 

[MikeK]

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

Jake,

You need to be much more specific about the circumstances and motivations in these hypotheticals. Mainly because there are some extremely relevant and important historical examples of such occurrences as you've mentioned above which need to be examined very closely before making assumptions about them.

For one example, if this were the early 1700s your observation and commentary would typically issue from a loyal Colonial subject of King George. A Tory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Easily answered. Notify the town that martial law is in effect, that any who surrender will be treated humanely but not IAW the Geneva Convention only as criminals, and any inhabitant taken with a weapon in hand will be summarily executed. Perfectly acceptable when dealing with treason.

Why? A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities? State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken. Then they can be executed.

Jake,

You need to be much more specific about the circumstances and motivations in these hypotheticals. Mainly because there are some extremely relevant and important historical examples of such occurrences as you've mentioned above which need to be examined very closely before making assumptions about them.

For one example, if this were the early 1700s your observation and commentary would typically issue from a loyal Colonial subject of King George. A Tory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which law is that?

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

You just got pawned.
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb has never understood the Constitution, so understand you will have to work with him.

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Another bitch get's pawned
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

Correct, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, it’s that case law which establishes the limits of government authority and the limits of our civil rights. All laws must conform to Constitutional case law and laws (or parts of laws) which are offensive to the Constitution are invalidated accordingly.

Three bitches getting pawned

ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[rightwinger]

I'm asking how (or IF) you propose rearming the people after you are found to have unconstitutionally disarmed them?

$$$$$$

Yeah, which we both know means nothing, if they cannot use the money to buy arms equivalent to those you unconstitutionally deprived them of. By the time the SCOTUS ruled against you, the firearms dealers would be out of business, the government and law enforcement would have contracts for all domestic production, and you'd use U.N. small arms treaties to prevent importation. It would cost you, but the American people would be disarmed, and totally at the mercy of government, a trade any statist would be happy to make. Slick, but utterly transparent, which is why, if you try it, you'll likely have widespread resistance to contend with. That resistance would not have to be violent; it could range from hiding weapons, to passive resistance to all voluntary cooperation with government (the path I prefer). What are you going to do, when the people figure out that no more than 30-40% of us can bring the country to a screeching halt? What; you thought only the Left paid attention to what can be done with large-scale civil disobedience? There's more than one way to fight you people. The Left in America has some built-in vulnerabilities, and I can assure you there are people who have put considerable thought into how to exploit those for maximum effect, if we really need to; and I don't think even people like Jake will obey orders to shoot unarmed people. (I KNOW I wouldn't!) Your and Obama's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is far from a done deal.

Save me from your hypothetical pity party.

First of all, our current political structure and supreme court interpretation prevents any gun legislation from passing. Secondly, there are 200 million guns in circulation. Confiscation would be impossible

You posed an unlikely hypothetical situation about what would happen if your guns were unconstitutionally taken away. I responded with what your rights are as a citizen

Your paranoid rant about evil Obama taking away your precious guns is pathetic

 

[rightwinger]

It's part of the law of the land.

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

You just got pawned.
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Pawned? How much did you get for me?

Your ability to understand your own Constitution reflects why the radical right is such a threat to our form of government

"This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF"

The Constitution is not enforceable in it's own right. Laws must be passed to implement it's conditions. Name a statement in the Constitution that is a law.

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcnHdrMyYLU&feature=related]Sergeant Major's Moto Cadence - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself

You just got pawned.
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Pawned? How much did you get for me?

Your ability to understand your own Constitution reflects why the radical right is such a threat to our form of government

"This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF"

The Constitution is not enforceable in it's own right. Laws must be passed to implement it's conditions. Name a statement in the Constitution that is a law.

I am really astounded at that you came back to this post and try to justify your stupidity article 6 in the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The actual words supreme law of the land should be a dead give away.

 

[rightwinger]

You just got pawned.
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Pawned? How much did you get for me?

Your ability to understand your own Constitution reflects why the radical right is such a threat to our form of government

"This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF"

The Constitution is not enforceable in it's own right. Laws must be passed to implement it's conditions. Name a statement in the Constitution that is a law.

I am really astounded at that you came back to this post and try to justify your stupidity article 6 in the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The actual words supreme law of the land should be a dead give away.

Your inability to understand the role of our Constitution is not surprising based on your posts

Let's start with an easy one. Explain how the Second Amendment is a law in and of itself

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pawned? How much did you get for me?

Your ability to understand your own Constitution reflects why the radical right is such a threat to our form of government

"This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF"

The Constitution is not enforceable in it's own right. Laws must be passed to implement it's conditions. Name a statement in the Constitution that is a law.

I am really astounded at that you came back to this post and try to justify your stupidity article 6 in the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The actual words supreme law of the land should be a dead give away.

Your inability to understand the role of our Constitution is not surprising based on your posts

Let's start with an easy one. Explain how the Second Amendment is a law in and of itself

What does this mean?

The supreme law of the land

 

[rightwinger]

I am really astounded at that you came back to this post and try to justify your stupidity article 6 in the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The actual words supreme law of the land should be a dead give away.

Your inability to understand the role of our Constitution is not surprising based on your posts

Let's start with an easy one. Explain how the Second Amendment is a law in and of itself

What does this mean?

The supreme law of the land

How do you arrest someone for violating the second amendment?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your inability to understand the role of our Constitution is not surprising based on your posts

Let's start with an easy one. Explain how the Second Amendment is a law in and of itself

What does this mean?

The supreme law of the land

How do you arrest someone for violating the second amendment?

What does
The supreme law of the land mean?