Posted on 01/28/2008 8:39:17 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
I'm sure that the government agents enforcing the Stamp Act in 1763, I think it was, expected the same thing. But such agents still found themselves roughly treated by those being subjected to those tyrannous taxes.
If somebody visited your home and despite your sincere denials that you possessed any arms, such person was about to leave and order a SWAT attack, wouldn't you do your best to persuade them not to do so? Once the word gets out, it becomes more difficult for the government agent to understate the critical nature of the contact.
Believe me, I'm right with you. I don't want to live through, or die in, a Civil War, let alone my wonderful four year old son. But the thing is, I don't think it's even worth going to the trouble to plan for the worst.
If the ruling, through some ridiculous twist of verbiage and logic that we've seen illustrated through all the pro-DC amicus briefs defies the plain wording of the amendment and the historical context in which it was adopted, plus decades of Supreme Court dicta, things won't break hard immediately after that - we'll still have a nominally pro-gun president for six months or so, plenty of time for someone to introduce a Constitutional amendment bill that reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," or whatever other steps may be needed.
The disarmed volunteers inspecting the armed citizens. I can predict how that will go.
It appears that you share my attitude that "I was only following orders" isn't going to be an acceptable defense for people who had a duty to protect our right to keep and bear arms but who instead supported government disarmament.
If the day comes that we have Nuremberg-like trials of anti-gunners, I will know how to judge their actions.
You might want to reread my previous posts. We are on the same side.
Ask Angel Shamaya what happens when your bitter ex spouse drops a dime that you neglected to submit a handgun you own to the "safety inspection" regimen of the state of Michigan.
They don't wait for any "signs of resistance," they apply overwhelming force the first time out.
I know we’re on the same side. I’m basically saying not to forget whose side “they” are on. As computers grow in capability, the Agencies will have powers that we once thought of as Star Wars technology. They’ll be able to check your credit card usage down to the single items purchased.
If you buy ‘too many’ paper targets, you’ll be selected for a closer cross agency review that will take all of 60 seconds. Then if the program determines that it is warranted you’ll get the full review. The whole 3 minute gig and they’ll know everything about you down to what brand of toilet paper you buy and how many roles you have bought in the past 12 months.
I saying, “Be afraid and stay paranoid about government power abuses”. They are common and will become only more so in the future. Our kids think it’s normal for governemnt to have all these powers because they weren’t taught any different. We know better.
See http://www.spychips.org/ for all the details of item-level tagging.
>If somebody visited your home and despite your sincere denials that you possessed any arms, such person was about to leave and order a SWAT attack, wouldn’t you do your best to persuade them not to do so?<
If their records show that you have bought 24 weapons in the past 30 years, they’ll expect that you can account for everyone of them. If you cannot they’ll automatically think that you are being evasive and deceitful which I’m sure is listed in their books placing your name in the resister column to governemnt regulations. If you don’t immediately offer to open your home, vehicles and business to a full technological inspection then you aren’t going to be checked off as compliant.
If you refuse to permit the full technological inspection without a Warrant from the Court that’s when you better have cash on hand and a darn good attorney.
I do not see many days of sunshine forecasted in the long term weather report for American civil rights.
the keeping of firearms was subject to extensive legal regulation.
lost me at that point unless they are arguing the requirement to field your own weapons as legal regulation...
hopefully, not that I really care about their opinion anyway, the supremes arent that dim a bulbs when it comes to 'history'...
I believe that kind of capability, maybe with a little manual "massaging" was in place in the mid-90s, at least concerning purchases at major retailers. Now the gig is neural networks and AI which automate most of all that, with multiple decision trees along the way, and no human intervention until a signature is needed.
BTW good post/thoughts...
I’d like to see them deny all citizens the right to bear arms.
It won’t end up pretty.
You’re referring to the ‘savings’ or club’ cards that are issued by larger food and retail stores. They build an “identity” of you from your purchases which in turn compiles a list of advertisements and coupons designed especially for buyers who fit that “identity”.
To expand the picture further, this also permits associated companies to send you their advertisments or to be placed on their ‘call lists’ for charities or whatever. These “identity” lists are very efficient in saving time and money for advertisers.
That said, I got the idea that the black robes will throw a wrench in the establishment just to separate themselves from the politically detested retards that collectively poll in the single digit approval range.
what 'honest' judge in their right mind would wanna piss off 90 million gun owners by throwin the door wide open for a leap off the slippery slope. Aint enough kevlar in the world to go that route, and an 'honest' ruling may vault their political/power status infinately further ahead of their cronies in one moment than all the appeasment of the past years combined...
whatcha think ???
right - something to which one has a just claim: as
a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
b: (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural
(2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
infringe - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
What are the liberals and gun-grabbers CONSTANTLY forgetting about this amendment?
"We the People of the United States..."
The people wrote this document. The people ratified this document. The people are protected by this document. It is for the benefit of "We the people".
I am "justly entitled" to keep, and bear, arms. That is my right as an American. And that right cannot be infringed.
I hope you swapped the 20 for plenty of 30.
Better off measuring ammo by tonnage.
Anybody can’t bring themselves to believe those words, I feel sorry for them.
Its my understanding that those documents are essentially government property that you are only required to keep for their purposes...
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.