QuoteQuote
Not that you'd understand, but:
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison
This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.
You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.
I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
We've been trying years to disarm the Taliban in Afghanistan the the rebels in Iraq. How is that going?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
kallend 2,150
QuoteWatching the attached videos is optional.
But I really can't see how guns could be confiscated in America without some serious blood being shed on all sides. I mean seriously, are guns that much of a problem where you want the Feds going around disarming the populous?
Americans and their Guns #1
Americans and their Guns #2
Americans and their Guns #3
I'm unaware of any serious proposal to confiscate guns in the USA,
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
quade 4
QuoteWe've been trying years to disarm the Taliban in Afghanistan the the rebels in Iraq. How is that going?
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteQuote
Not that you'd understand, but:
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison
This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.
You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.
I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.
You two are talking past each other. B.D., you're taling about "duty". George, you're talking about "obligation". Your respective positions are NOT mutually exclusive; and in fact, you're both correct.
rhaig 0
Quote
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote.
you mean
QuoteNot that the government wouldn't ultimately win . . . they absolutely would . . .
you mean of course that since the military has tanks and planes and fully automatic weapons, and mortars and grenades and all that fancy stuff they have in Iraq right now, that no underground resistance here could stand a chance.
Is that what you're saying?
--
Rob
Rob
wolfriverjoe 1,523
Well, on one side, Ray Nagin of New Orleans had his cops go around and confiscate all the guns they could after Hurricane Katrina. I don't recall any organized, violent resistance to that.
On the other side, there have been polls (no, I don't have any links) that a majority of cops and soldiers wouldn't follow orders to do something like this.
Personally, I don't see it happening on a nationwide scale. But I could be wrong.
On the other side, there have been polls (no, I don't have any links) that a majority of cops and soldiers wouldn't follow orders to do something like this.
Personally, I don't see it happening on a nationwide scale. But I could be wrong.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
DanG 1
Trying to disarm one segment of the population is a lot harder than disarming everyone.
- Dan G
- Dan G
QuoteWell, on one side, Ray Nagin of New Orleans had his cops go around and confiscate all the guns they could after Hurricane Katrina. I don't recall any organized, violent resistance to that.
That's because "Machine Gun Grandma" does not live in New Orleans.
If she did, Nagin would have had more trouble than he could imagine.
Here is a short video of ""Machine Gun Grandma":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYXJYQZ3FX0&feature=related
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
wolfriverjoe 1,523
QuoteQuoteWell, on one side, Ray Nagin of New Orleans had his cops go around and confiscate all the guns they could after Hurricane Katrina. I don't recall any organized, violent resistance to that.
That's because "Machine Gun Grandma" does not live in New Orleans.
If she did, Nagin would have had more trouble than he could imagine.
Here is a short video of ""Machine Gun Grandma":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYXJYQZ3FX0&feature=related
No, she either would have been disarmed or dead. If she hadn't given up, the cops would have called for help. And if that wasn't enough, they would have called the FBI, or the National Guard. And if she had killed any cops in the process, the chances of her being taken alive would have decreased significantly.
Quade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.
Right or wrong, innocent or guilty.
The Ron White joke (from the larger "They Call Me Tater Salad" story)
"I didn't know how many it would have taken to kick my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use" fits here.
The government will use as many as it takes. They have to. As soon as they don't, anyone and everyone will be challenging their authority.
Sort of like how they no longer allow hostage takers off the premises. You can't tell the FBI to have a plane fueled and waiting at the airport if a bank robbery goes wrong. They simply won't do it. So most hostage situations (no, not all) end reasonably well - because the bad guys know if it reaches that point, they have lost.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
QuoteQuoteWe've been trying years to disarm the Taliban in Afghanistan the the rebels in Iraq. How is that going?
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote.
The interpretation I got from your post is that the government will ultimately win out.
Did you mean something else?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
JohnRich 4
Quoteif there was ever a decree that weapons nation-wide were to be confiscated, then, I think we'd see some serious shit go down with the "militia" types. I think most people in government know that which is why I think it's silly for anyone to ever fear that happening. Nobody is ever going to risk that kind of widespread civil unrest.
And that, my friends, is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's not about hunting, as the gun-o-phobes would have us believe. It's about the people retaining the ultimate power to prevent the government from running amok. Not just with gun ownership, but with any other type of widespread disagreeable legislation also. It's the final step in the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers built into our system of government.
"One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible."That is the power of the 2nd Amendment.
- Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe've been trying years to disarm the Taliban in Afghanistan the the rebels in Iraq. How is that going?
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote.
The interpretation I got from your post is that the government will ultimately win out.
Did you mean something else?
If they were determined to win, they would. There is no question in my mind.
That said, it would NEVER come to that because wide spread civil unrest in the US is bad for business. Civil unrest in other countries is AWESOME for business, but in the US it's a losing proposition, therefore it would never happen to begin with just for the purposes of gun confiscation. There would NEVER be the political will to do it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.
You mean like that small band of men who started the American Revolution against the British?
Or that small band of Texans who started the Texas Revolution against Mexico?
mnealtx 0
QuoteThere would NEVER be the political will to do it.
They try - luckily, so far they've failed.
Quote"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 "crime bill"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.
You mean like that small band of men who started the American Revolution against the British?
Or that small band of Texans who started the Texas Revolution against Mexico?
Remember the Alamo? Pretty sure most of them died.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.
You mean like that small band of men who started the American Revolution against the British?
Or that small band of Texans who started the Texas Revolution against Mexico?
Remember the Alamo? Pretty sure most of them died.
Look up "The battle of San Jacinto".
News flash: Texas is no longer a province of Mexico!
Just because small groups of committed men may lose some battles along the way, does not mean that they won't win the cause in the end. That was true of both the American Revolution, and the Texas Revolution.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.
You mean like that small band of men who started the American Revolution against the British?
Or that small band of Texans who started the Texas Revolution against Mexico?
Remember the Alamo? Pretty sure most of them died.
This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.
You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites