Replies

Yeah, but why do people NEED a .50 cal

I saw your emoticon, and I know you are kidding. But that question, or a variation of it, comes up frequently, and, thus, needs an answer.

About ten years ago, shortly before the "assault weapons" ban was passed, I was asked a similar question by my brother-in-law (the question was actually, "Who needs an Uzi?"), and I couldn't come up with a good answer. As a result of that experience, I gave the question considerable thought. I eventually realized that the question is illegitimate.

If the government wishes to limit my activities, it needs to prove a compelling reason to do so. I am not required to justify my actions; the burden of proof rests solely upon those who wish to limit (or compel) my behavior. The default position should always favor personal freedom.

Nevertheless, one of the best counters to this argument is to point out that all one really "needs" is a fifth floor walkup one room apartment heated to 50 degrees; a small potato, piece of carrot, and some cabbage boiled for your supper; and a cloth coat and study pair of shoes to walk to the bus stop to get to work. The Soviet Union did an excellent job of providing just that for its citizens, but they seemed to want more.

Also, use the same reasoning but substitue the person's preferred activity: boating, fishing, skydiving, motorcycling, collecting, travel, pets, etc. The hope is that they will see the illegitimacy of the question.

"Compelling State interest" is the '1984' contrived excuse by "government" to violate the only bilateral social constract, our RATIFIED Constitution, from which our government's actors, good and bad, derive any and all of their limited, temporary lawful powers.

Most arm's caliber larger tha ".50" is defined "by law" as a destructive device". Why? When did that that become 'Constitutional', violating our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Because it is "the law" and a "compelling State interest"? Where is it in our RATIFIED Constitution?

For 70 years We the People have allowed and promoted Government to violate and undermine our only Constitution. Police powers of the State are meant by The State to overpower any civil rights of The People or of the Several States which created the limited federal government.

UnConstitutional Executive Orders, statutes, and court RULINGS do not make such "law" lawful. When it flies "prima facia" in the face of our only Constitution, our RATIFIED Constitution, no statute, president, court or SCOTUS can lawfully violate our only Constitution, without becoming outlaws - sedition.

Courts violating our Ratified Constitution is not "interpretation". No interpretation can rewrite our Constitution, our RATIFIED Constitution, THE Law of OUR Land. Our Constitution defines the only means of altering our Constituton and "by order of the court" is not one.

By Executive Order is not a permitted means of changing our Constitution either despite what all presidents since Wilson's 1917 'Emergency Powers Act', and Lincoln's kingship sanctions against The People, have serially schemed.

Sedition is sedition even if within the Trojan Horse of any courthouse, statehouse, or White House. Or is it treason, as practiced within the reign of XXX-42s? Even conspiracies among all three branches do not make sedition not sedition or treason not treason.

Sedition by order of the court is no less sedition. Martial law is not a power permitted within our Constitution, yet, many Executive Orders await - to be executed to nullify our lawful government's existance - forget your rights.

Elites know that the lessons taught by Gunny Hathcock were well learned by thousands of Americans, shooting skills well learned by millions of Americans, and Constitutional Rights well learned by tens of millions of armed Americans. Elites know that their assault gavels alone can not control the informed Armed American, pursuant to our Ratified Constitution. Elites thus move to criminalize what is clearly Constitutional, through statutes reinforced by rulings of influential courts, "controlling legal authority". Elites can never feel safe from We the People and the Several States until we are disarmed and they have their Pretorian Guards.

What you gonna do? Our Betters have spoken. Even our 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause has been ruled not to apply to white men for another 20 years or so, by order of only 3 old men and 2 old women following EU and international law influences. Such unConstitutional ruling arrogance is open defiance against our Constitutional Republic. Our betters have spoken, again and again.

That sound of gavels is the sound of Trojan Horses charging across Concord Bridge to destroy Americans' ability to protect and defend our RATIFIED Constition against all enemies foreign and domestic. What you gonna do?

To challenge "the court" is to risk "contempt". To lock and load is against "the law". To defend against all enemies foreign and domestic is "our duty".