Posted on 03/27/2021 6:21:28 AM PDT by ransomnote
The EO doesn’t have to be a door to door confiscation order. Such would be patently unconstitutional and even Biden isn’t dumb enough to try it.
However, there is a lot that can be done via EO that your “I WILL NOT COMPLY!” will have nothing to do with.
Just a few Examples:
1: Imports. (Bush Sr. did this by EO back in 1989. Klintoon did it again in 1998 and 2001.)
2: Increased funding for ATF Enforcement.
3: Directing the ATF to make creative interpretations of features and definitions.
4. Increasing processing time for various regulatory functions.
“I WILL NOT COMPLY” sound great on paper and you shouldn’t comply with violations of the 2nd Amendment. However, it is also largely become a meaningless coping mechanism for many.
Saying “I WILL NOT COMPLY” doesn’t change the fact that there are many regulations that will directly affect you for which your non-compliance is irrelevant.
This is one of the reasons that people who take the coward’s way out of “IZ NOTTA A VOTINGZ NO MOARH!” have brought this on themselves.
You are absolutely correct as to the ignorant moron class who put us in this situation that we are in.
I just wonder though, where is there to move to? Virtually every other country on earth is a socialist/marxist cesspool.
Only three countries on earth have a Constitutional Right to bear arms (Mexico, Guatemala and the United States) and among those, the 2nd Amendment is unique. Mexico and Guatemala’s provisions are weak and almost meaningless.
There really isn’t any other place to move to.
Modified laws before elimination
Freedom of speech check
Right to bear arms check
Voting check
Democrats are racing to speed things up before the 2022 election vote or take the loss forever no other options.
“I just wonder though, where is there to move to? Virtually every other country on earth is a socialist/marxist cesspool.”
Still working on the country, but I’ll let you know in a bit (I have a list of FReepers who’ve asked me - you’re on it).
As to all other countries being crap when it comes to Socialism, while I certainly agree with you, there are two things that we’ll soon see that will make our brand of Socialism ‘very special’:
1) The people in power despise us, and even consider us (Trump supporters) subhuman. This is important, because it’s a prerequistite for a genocide, or at least a cultural revolution.
2) Their brownshirts will remain armed to the teeth (both because the ‘tools’ that Uncle Sam has won’t work nearly as well, and because they’ll be helping ‘the revolution’), it will only be the honest people without arms.
Much of Central America has #2, but not #1; Other Third World countries have both (think Rwanda); But other Socialist countries have neither - those are the target countries. Also keep in mind that the longer people wait, the less options they’ll have to relocate, due to the flood of Americans soon-to-be fleeing, similar to the situation with European Jews in the late 1930s.
In a close to normal world, that would be the case. We left normal during the covid shutdown, and the door was slammed during the election. Until further notice, we’re stuck in uncharted territory.
us too
“The possible scenarios are endless which if mulled over leads to fear and paranoia. Could care less what some faceless moron can or can’t do. These dips only think they’re in control when in actuality God is in total control. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. It’s really that simple.”
In my defense, I only referenced some of the ‘tools’ already in use by the federal government (IRS and DHS). There are quite a few more on my home page, some which may border on paranoid, but I listed them anyway, because they’ll be easy to implement if needed.
As to the Lord coming in, all I can say is that I’m glad that FDR didn’t count on that in 1941, as we wouldn’t be here conversing if he did.
They may not need to “stack” the courts. There are only two Constitutionalists on the USSC now. All three of Trump’s appointments lost no time jumping over to the “safe” side.
And if they can put it in they can take it out.
If the USA is finished so is every other country that has depended on the USA umbrella. Other free and relatively free country keeps its freedom because the USA is the most powerful exponent of freedom in the world. That seems about to change as the USA self destructs.
I doubt China wants to get involved militarily over here, especially since they already have people acting in their behalf on the ground here, at the highest level of government.
Instead, I think they prefer to see the US go the way of Argentina or Venezuela (probably Venezuela), and thus be out of their way as a world power (that will be in about 3 years). The only thing that could draw us into a conflict with them is Taiwan, and given our government here, I’m certain China will finally move to ‘liberate’ Taiwan from the ‘capitalists’ (I little Communist lingo, for those of you in Rio Linda). Most likely it will be due to a careless policy statement from our government, which is exactly what caused the 1990 invasion of Kuwait also.
“There really isn’t any other place to move to.”
So true. I will not leave my country, even if there were a good place to go. I am bound to her by the countless sacrifices made by my family and others through the years. We signed the Declaration and the Constitution. We were at Valley Forge and Yorktown, Chickamauga, Appomattox and others. We were in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and on to the current conflicts. We still serve. I will not leave her in her hour of need.
One wonders what unelected person(s) are running the executive branch.
“If the USA is finished so is every other country that has depended on the USA umbrella. Other free and relatively free country keeps its freedom because the USA is the most powerful exponent of freedom in the world. That seems about to change as the USA self destructs.”
I agree, freedom dies when the US dies. The question, though, is where do you want to be when that happens? The writing is on the wall regarding the fate of Trump supporters in the US, just as it was regarding Jews in 1930s Europe. I’ve studied 1930s Europe and we’re looked at EXACTLY the same way today as the Jews were back then. So I’m outta here as there are countries where I’m not viewed nearly as bad.
Remember when he said if he became president he would make everyone wear masks and his legal team said he was pretty sure he could do it. How did that work out for him. If he can’t do that then no way he can take guns. He knows it. He just don’t want to admit it. So he is calling on Congress to do it and they want no part of it. They can talk but they will be voted out if they do it.
“They can talk but they will be voted out if they do it.”
If they’re able to ram-through all of the crap they’ve been dreaming of for DECADES in 2 years, I suspect that most of them won’t even mind being voted out (assuming that it’s even possible, given our voting system).
Otherwise, if lawmakers had to vote on gun restriction bills for example, then it wouldn’t be surprising if most of them would have to expose themselves as anti-2nd Amendment.
In preparation for the 2022 midterm primaries, patriots need to be asking all federal and state candidates to agree that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws.
Hopefully, patriots will then start pulling other loose threads by checking what other federal laws, including federal spending programs are constitutionally indefensible.
From related threads…
To start this 2nd Amendment (2A) discussion, please consider this. Regarding recent gun violence, the main option that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave to the feds to address domestic violence in a state is to wait for a state to formally request help from the feds.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added]."
As a side note to federal involvement in violence, note that although a state is not obligated to request help from the feds for domestic violence, consider that the feds also have the express power to interfere with possibly nationally-related violence in a state imo.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];"
Otherwise, let’s examine major constitutional problems (imo) with so-called federal peacetime gun control laws and executive orders.
Patriots, in addition to continuing to defend 2A, also argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime gun control laws.
More specifically, since the federal government has only those powers that the states expressly constitutionally give to it, some of the drafters of the Bill of Rights (BoR) had expressed the following concern.
The drafters had feared that patriots would eventually develop tunnel vision (my words) for BoR protections and forget that the BoR was redundant in the context that powers that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds to regulate our basic protections are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that, until the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified was ratified, the states hadn’t expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
The great irony of 14A where today’s unconstitutional (imo) peacetime federal gun control laws are concerned is this. That amendment gives Congress the specific power only to make penal laws that STRENGTHEN constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A, from abridgment by state actors, still no express power for Congress to make peacetime gun control laws.
“The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Unfortunately, today’s generation is proof that patriots have long-forgotten the significance of constitutionally enumerated federal government powers as the drafters of the BoR had feared, particularly the lack of such powers in the context of peacetime gun rights.
In fact, it is disturbing that peacetime restrictive federal gun laws seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make imo.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Even the post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court is glaring evidence that top legal professionals don’t bother to check if a contested federal law is reasonably justified under a constitutionally enumerated power.
Finally, citizens need to start working with their federal lawmakers to demand the following. When the federal government accuses someone of violating a federal law, the accused also needs to be informed of at least the common name of the constitutional clause that arguably justifies the law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where our 2A safety net is concerned.
until they really have nothing to lose.
It is rapidly approaching that point. I dont think it will take much more to push the American people over the edge. The left will not like the rules of engagment. I am afraid there will not be many prisoners taken by either side.
Red
As more and more lose their unemployment checks, lose their homes (or face it), etc. more will be incentivized to act out.
I think Dave Ramsey is saving a lot of lives in a very real way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.