Exercising Your Rights Under The Declaration of Independence and Constitution

Would You Consider Joining A Revolutionary Movement If Heller Goes Against RKBA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 65 67.0%

  • No

    Votes: 10 10.3%

  • Uncertian

    Votes: 22 22.7%
  • Total voters
    97
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GRB

member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
1,774
In the event that Heller is decided strongly against the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore against the people and their ability to revolt and overthrow tyrants, would any of you consider actually forming or joining a revolutionary group to support the RKBA?

I am not advocating such, or even suggesting it as the right way to go, but I am fairly certain that I would strongly consider joining a movement, overtly or underground, to protect and uphold the Constitution if the Supreme Court decides to tear it asunder by putting down the RKBA. I am curious to know how many others out there would think that the destruction of the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA would be worth such drastic action.

Please keep the reply posts on the intelligent and respectful side, this is a tinder box topic but there is no need for us to get out of hand with one another discussing it.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
I do wish I had thought of this one earlier than the day before the planned announcement of the decision.
 
A decision against individual rights would be very bad for this government.

First, it would be bad for the people that government would oppress.



There is no such thing as a collective right, government rights, states rights, cumulative rights, social rights, or social justice.

All rights are individual. The same goes for justice.
 
Glenn, at the NRA Annual Meetings the seminar that THR's Henry Bowman and I attended made a point of distinguishing between legal and political victories. In fact, a anti-individual rights ruling would be the only way McCain could win in November.

Take the Bowers and Lawrence decisions. In 1986 there was no right to sodomy, in 2005 there was.

While Bowers was a legal defeat for the homosexual community, it was a political battle cry. Public opinion as to homosexuals went through a transformation between '86 and '05.

If Heller was decided against individual rights, it would be a political earthquake. Gun owners would flock to the NRA (tens of millions of people say they are memebers but only 4 million are members) and the political impact would lead to a quick reversal of such a decision.

The ideal political position for the Court to take is a "yes, but" approach. Yes, it is an individual right, but government can smother it and infringe it with red tape and hoop jumping. A decision such as this will not ignite a political grassfire and please the elites that the Justices live among (and will continue to invite them to their cocktail parties).
 
There is no such thing as a collective right, government rights, states rights, cumulative rights, social rights, or social justice.
Click to expand...
This is not correct under the laws of the USA, the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution - but many people make the assumption that a right is that of an individiual. Rights are UNIVERSAL - they are for each and EVERYone of us andf therefore by being for the whole of us, are also for each of us as individuals. There is no, and I mean absolutely no, distinction between to whom a right applies either as we the people or I the individual. So yes there certainly are collective rights - the rights of the People, but those rights are for each of us. This is not semantics either, but rather is how our laws were written, to assure rights and the liberties to enjoy them for all. That those rights are for all of us and that each individual is at liberty to exercise those rights is a grand thing, isn't it - it is what separates us from any other nation on earth.

I do understand the distinction that could be made in the courts though, don't be fooled into believing otherwise; and in that light if they move against us as we the people, and therefore against each individual in the nation. I would strongly consider joining a revolutionary movement.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
In fact, a anti-individual rights ruling would be the only way McCain could win in November.
Click to expand...

I agree with the rest, but this is a bit of a stretch, for a whole list of reasons.

Remember how Clinton lost in '96? No?

McCain will stand or fall on many things, not this. If anything, he's pretty weak on this.
 
Is Montana taking applications for citizenship? :D

I've said it here many times but I'll do it again... It seems to me like the SCOTUS will pay lip service to the 2nd and uphold the lower courts ruling affirming our individual right to arms but at the same time water it down to keep current federal standards in place thus achieving nothing other than resolving the meaning of the 2nd while preserving it's gutting.

Where they come up with this absolute crap about scrutiny is beyond me. My copy of the Constitution doesn't mention anything about scrutiny. It doesn't say that some portions are to be followed closely, others loosely, and to invent new rights and restrictions at the whim of some federal judge. It's just another technique to change the rules of the game and stack them in the government's favor. IMHO

In a previous time perhaps the pitchforks,torches, and a length or rope would be brought out to resolve any attempt by some government officials to rule that a CONSTITUTIONAL protection isn't subject to the strictest scrutiny. Personally, I'd love to see the government put back in it's place and the rule of law govern again.

I predict they'll give us enough to keep us quiet while also keeping us fully and completely under their control.
 
The ideal political position for the Court to take is a "yes, but" approach. Yes, it is an individual right, but government can smother it and infringe it with red tape and hoop jumping. A decision such as this will not ignite a political grassfire and please the elites that the Justices live among (and will continue to invite them to their cocktail parties).
Click to expand...

You mean like Mexico's RKBA?

"Citizens of the republic may, for their protection, own guns and arms in their homes. Only arms sanctioned by the Army may be owned, and federal law will state the manner in which they can be used."

Of course we know the result is that only a few thousand out of a population over 100 million legaly possess firearms in Mexico.
There is only one legal firearm retailer in the nation, and it is run by the government.
There is restrictions on the calibers or types for those few that can. .380ACP being the maximum caliber for handguns for example.


Essentialy Article 10 served no purpose by even being added to the constitution because it just says the government can restrict or ignore it as much as they want.
Why bother to add it.
"We hereby state this right, which may be infringed on at any time and to whatever extent those in power wish."
 
I have enjoyed reading all the comments and agree with many that there will be a “yes but verdict”. Remember they are only answering on the Heller case so even if they say it is an individual right with out any question it does not cancel or change any laws in any other state, it only puts a question mark on their legality. Then each law will have to be challenged in court to show how it effects your individual right to own a firearm before it can be changed. This could take years and years giving the anti folks a chance to re-write the laws stating you can have firearms “it is your right” but only in your home with 400 restrictions, permits, fingerprints and a DNA sample to make you question do I really want one. The states that have great firearm rights still will and the others still will not.

At the moment this does not concern me as much as some of the antiterrorism laws that have been passed and are currently being proposed. The fact we are meeting here and have even thought that we could go against our government (not even plot, just thought) for whatever reason legitimate or not could classify us as terrorist. Add the fact most of have firearms and we are now “Armed Terrorist” This in itself if I have read the laws correctly could get us arrested and our individual right are no more including our right to own firearms. I know this is not the place to discusses this but in one package your first and second amendment rights are gone. Just food for thought!

By the way yes I would consider joining a movement, overtly or underground, to protect and uphold the Constitution.
 
I Would get an amendment passed changing the US CONS. That is well with in our powers as "the People"
 
It looks to be only a few hours away. I'm a little bit nervous, but I'm confident things will come down on our side.

However, even if things go our way, we still have a huge battle on our hands for right to carry. And getting NFA overturned would be a nice thing too!
 
Nothing much will impact McCain's chances of winning. This election will be entirely a referendum on Obama. I say McCain wins easily. And oh yeah, the ruling will be yes but.
 
leadcounsel..

Open forum is the best place TO discuss that kind of thing. The fact that people are (and that this thread has not yet been locked and deleted) is an indication that it isn't QUITE that bad...yet. Its close, and people are very likely making sure they're prepared for it, but its not at the point of meeting in back rooms and dark alleys to plan the next "event".

If you're afraid to make it clear to our government that you're completely disgusted with its laws and policies, that should be a crystal clear sign to you that the laws and policies are well overdue for a change.
 
i would NOT be opposed to contemplating it. read into that however you want, i know where i stand.
 
A revolt at the ballot box would seem to be the place to start.
Click to expand...
totally agree. The NRA and guys like Heller have done a lot more to keep and improve gun rights than a jillion guys with Tyranny Response Team tshirts reloading ammo in their basement and shooting dirt banks behind their homes while listening to shortwave broadcasts.
 
Glenn Bartley

You need to look at the definition of "people". It's the plural of "individual". LB7 Driver is correct.

As for a revolutionary movement, I''ll not be part of any movement against those of us in government unless those in government make a move on me. That is to say, if confiscation or some other action(s) as dastardly as confiscation begins. The revolutuin was started by the Brits heading out to confiscate/destroy our powder stores. We were in the right. The Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumpter and were in the wrong. I'll wait 'till I am or some other one of us is "attacked", then I'm aboard. Arms kept and borne move into the arms borne against the errent in government.

Looks like SCOTUS has ruled that the individual right to keep and bear arms is affirmed. Maybe we won't have to face off with those in government wishing to disarm us....Either that, or our right to do so is on much firmer ground!

Woody
 
Wouldn't discussing the upholding of the US Constitution be considered pro-government not anti?
Click to expand...

The Constitution protects the people, not the government - it's anti-government and they know it. They don't want people to know it or understand it.

I would join a revolutionary movement, it's be the only war within the last 100 years or so that would be actually justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top