Civilians owned and operated battleships.
Canada bans 1500 kinds of military style weapons.
- Thread starter eider
- Start date
So why can't we all have nukes now? This is a clear violation of our 2nd ammendment writes.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Pretty much everything you write is a joke, though.
Yeah, this is exactly the stupidity I'm talking about: Calling prohibitions against something like buying this or that, or against buying this or that in such or such quantities--calling such a thing a "lockdown" is unbelievably asinine.
Try to state exactly what it is that makes any and every thing you would call a "lockdown", a "lockdown". What would you say is the sine qua non of a lockdown?
Aimiel
Well-known member
Oh, I am a risk; but it's the risk that elected officials take when they sware to up-hold and defend the United States Constitution, the same oath that I took when I joined the U.S. Navy. I was never relieved from that oath. I still hold to it, every single day. I know that every single colonist in the 13 colonies was breaking the law of the land when they took up arms against your king, too. You have to realize that tyranny isn't going to declare such, it comes disguised as 'security' and 'safety.' The rights and freedoms we enjoy in America aren't due to a king on his throne. They're guaranteed to us by our Constitution. Should anyone, including the President, Congress, State or Local Officials, violate that Bill of Rights, we are bound by our oath to protect and defend those rights and freedoms. This is obviously something you Brits simply don't understand, because you're subjects, not free men. Perhaps, one day, you will. I doubt it, though. You seem happy as a drone.
Here in America, we revere those who've died protecting and defending the rights and freedoms granted by God and we attempt to help all those that we can to achieve freedom from tyranny. If we one day get the call from your Queen, Prime Minister or whomever might be left alive to come defend you from such, I'm sure we'll come to your aid, but you'll probably just bow down and accept the new government leaders, just like you're doing today.
Last edited:
Aimiel
Well-known member
I don't take medical advice from hot-headed ignoramuses'.
The Constitution is ours. It doesn't belong to our government, it belongs to us, to We the People. The government is supposed to obey it. And we do reserve our right (our property right) to take matters into our own hands if ever our government (which, for you Brits, is the whole kit and kaboodle, including the White House /presidency, the legislature, and the courts) becomes destructive of the security of our Constitution, just like how the English king's subjects explicated in Magna Carta clause 61, back in 1215.
That's right. And the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own nukes.
eider
Well-known member
There must be something wrong with you.
Where did I mention Castro?
I don't despise God, I'm a Deist.
The governments of New Zealand and Canada are not thieves.
I am not a Satanist....
eider
Well-known member
Interesting opinion and viewpoint.
Well, you've got a vote....... so vote for what you want.
But elections are a foundation of your Constitution so you would need to respect your government's decisions.
However, Canada and New Zealand (and the UK) have made different decisions to yours at present..
eider
Well-known member
Where does your Constitution make mention of God?
The day that you go out to kill your own servicemen and women 'cos you aren't happy with the decisions of an elected government then you will be a terrorist. Where I live we get terrorist attacks on our serving police, military and public and the crazed extremists usually are doing that for their God. Don't debase yours by trying to do the same.
eider
Well-known member
Hi......... I'm answering this because you were writing to us Brits rather than Almiel......
You the people get a vote, right?
So you obey the people.
If the people decide about something........ that's that, right?
If you go out threatening and killing with your guns then you are not with the electorate or anybody, surely.
You mention the Magna Carta...... King John got forced to sign up to that, and then afterwards he killed everybody who forced his hand.
And the people were never free to do as they pleased, nor are they now, and nor are you. We all have to abide by our governments decisions but we can change them with the vote, not with murder.
eider
Well-known member
Aimiel
Well-known member
The Preamble makes an implication:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Also, when ratified, the date was mentioned as: "In the year of our Lord 1787." Jesus is our only Lord, here in the United States. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times, one of which I think of most often is where it says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor only were these men smart enough to think of the good things which should be guaranteed to all men but they were also smart enough to realize where these rights came from to begin with.
I'm not debasing anything, but we own guns to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That was in my oath, as it is in every public office in this country.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Aimiel
Well-known member
When a government becomes too tyrannical to a point where it's un-bearable, people revolt. Venezuela is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes away the rights of the people, the last of which is usually gun ownership.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Silly eider doesn't remember that changing governments by vote didn't work for us in the early 1770s.
We had to resort to terrorism and murder. :banana:
Because not only do we censor the right to bear arms, we even censor serious discussion of the right to bear arms, these questions aren't dealt with because they are outside the "Overton window" and so are automatically dismissed by most people, and with prejudice. It's not constructive and it is dysfunctional. The right is a moral right, it is wrong to censor it, and so if it is justified to forbid people from owning and carrying certain arms then that justification must be moral in nature, and we don't have anything like that to support all the arms /gun control laws in this country. We're just plainly disobeying the Bill of Rights, gun /arms control laws are all prima facie repugnant to the Constitution, and we're not addressing this issue.
It was to both but I wanted to be careful use the right words for you all on the other side of the pond. Your word "government" isn't as encompassing as ours. The Constitution here establishes the entire regime, including our courts, and I know that your "government" is separate from your courts.Hi......... I'm answering this because you were writing to us Brits rather than Almiel......
There's an important distinction between an unfettered democracy, and a liberal democracy. Liberal regimes are limited by the individual basic human rights of its people /civilians /public. Liberal regimes have as a duty to defend these rights. What you're suggesting, that a majority can validly vote to censor any of our rights, or to deny them completely, is not liberal. It is anarchic, or anarchy (though perhaps somewhat organized anarchy) adjacent. Any democracy that permits, authorizes, allows, condones, the violation of inviolable rights is broken and needs fixing, and it is headed down the road to abject failure as a regime.
He especially didn't like clause 61.
So you're telling us that governments sometimes don't obey the rules that they have ostensively agreed to.
Murder is killing without justification. The Americans were justified, not murderers.