Armed defense?

[erisian]

Someone mentioned Katrina. That is the most likely scenario for the government going after firearms-- an "emergency" declared by the president, by decree, with zero democracy involved. To my mind, though, anything under color of law which gives the government powers which are not enumerated in the Constitution is clearly in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is a creature of the Constitution, and as such it has no power to suspend the Constitution. If it does so, then it has just supended itself as well, and is therefore no longer legitimate.

So when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too, and politely explain to them that they have been given illegal orders. Remind them that the Constitution they have sworn to protect is the supreme law of the land, and the order to disarm the People is a violation of it. You might point out that since the US Constitution has been suspended, that your fallback position is the NH Constitution, which specifically guarantees your individual right to defend your life, liberty, property, and the state by force of arms. Tell them that the federal government is the outlaw here, and try to get them to turn from protecting the government to protecting the Constitution and the People.

If that doesn't work, then they are traitors to the US Constitution, enemies of the state of NH, and an imminent threat to your life, liberty, and property. Shoot them if necessary.

[Becky Thatcher]

You sure are smart for a sickly lil guy.

[Peacemaker]

Someone mentioned Katrina. That is the most likely scenario for the government going after firearms-- an "emergency" declared by the president, by decree, with zero democracy involved. To my mind, though, anything under color of law which gives the government powers which are not enumerated in the Constitution is clearly in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is a creature of the Constitution, and as such it has no power to suspend the Constitution. If it does so, then it has just supended itself as well, and is therefore no longer legitimate.

So when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too, and politely explain to them that they have been given illegal orders. Remind them that the Constitution they have sworn to protect is the supreme law of the land, and the order to disarm the People is a violation of it. You might point out that since the US Constitution has been suspended, that your fallback position is the NH Constitution, which specifically guarantees your individual right to defend your life, liberty, property, and the state by force of arms. Tell them that the federal government is the outlaw here, and try to get them to turn from protecting the government to protecting the Constitution and the People.

If that doesn't work, then they are traitors to the US Constitution, enemies of the state of NH, and an imminent threat to your life, liberty, and property. Shoot them if necessary.

I mentioned Katrina/emergency earlier.  Great job of breaking it down and explaining the dialogue/method one could use to peacefully resist them!

[leetninja]

Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer.  A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ?  Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. 

Probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to the oldschool BBS days when warez and r0dentz abounded, and being "L337" (elite) was kewl.

so when did this become a pick on me thing? really??? this is how you handle opinions you dont happen to agree with? 

and still would love to know what kat meat by

I don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.

is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief?  if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...

[slave_3646]

There is a very, very, very good reason why govt. Inc does what it wants. They're not afraid of you.

So for as long as they're not afraid, so long as there are no consequences for their crimes, and for as long as you're unwilling to stand up and defend your rights by force when necessary, things will get worse for people who should be free.

[Kat Kanning]

is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief?  if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...

He seemed annoyed that you were calling me stupid.  I thought he posted something or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

[leetninja]

i never called anyone stupid ...

[leetninja]

and now that i think about it ... SO WHAT IF I DID?!  Call someone stupid or dont agree with them and he is going to forcibly make a member leave?  Wow, that is really mature ...

I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice

[KBCraig]

I don't think you've been mistreated here. Even though I think kicking someone off the forum over an insult, whether perceived or real, would be an over-reaction, the constitution does not apply here, nor on any other private property. The constitution is a limitation on government (or would be, if they paid any attention to it), not on private individuals.

[wolf]

So when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too

Flag of truce?? lot's of luck, they are dishonorable pieces of shit and they won't respect a white flag. If you don't immediately surrender they will open fire with automatic weapons.

[leetninja]

I don't think you've been mistreated here. Even though I think kicking someone off the forum over an insult, whether perceived or real, would be an over-reaction, the constitution does not apply here, nor on any other private property. The constitution is a limitation on government (or would be, if they paid any attention to it), not on private individuals.

i agree that kicking someone off for an insult perceived or real would be an over-reaction ... id like to point out that in this particular instance i never called Kat or Russell idiots - i simply didnt agree with their point of view.  then again i do agree with their point of view its just they seem to have no cut off point at which the non violent noncooperation ends and i well ... quite simply ... i do have one.

i dont think i am being mistreated per say but i do think that a simple and innocent sticker idea thread has turned into a pig pile on me i.e. my forum name somehow being picked on!?  Not that I care but ... whatever.  Also the half/not/possible/perhaps a/mistaken/potential/passive-aggressive threat of removal of a member (me) for speaking their mind is a bit odd to me.  Actually I would go as far as to say that I truly believe that forcibly removing/deleting/SILENCING a member WOULD be stupid.  I dont think it would be right - regardless of who it is.  Sure there are instances where people need to be shut up i.e. trolls.  that is about it.  someone voicing their opinions or beliefs? no, sorry just no.  not enough. 

i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well.  I also believe that it should be a universal belief. 

i dont go around trying to censor everything that everyone says that i dont happen to agree with.  if someone thinks i am an idiot then they are entitled to their opinion.  opinions are like assholes ... everyone has one.  not everyone will agree with everyone elses opinions.  usually discussion would take place or debate about the differences of opinion.  not exiling someone or forcibly removing them just because you can and are in a position to do so.  if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer. 

[Ryan McGuire]

I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice

i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well.  I also believe that it should be a universal belief. 

I think you need a reality check about what the constitution is all about. You seriously believe in the whole thing? Even the part where it implies that slavery is OK and that slaves should be considered as 3/5ths of a person? The reality is this: the constitution's only purpose is to give pseudo-legitimacy to the use of violent force over non-consenting people. It doesn't grant you anything. I know some people around here like to cling to some of the (marginally) better parts of the constitution (eg. the first 10 amendments), but someone who believes in the whole thing as being some inerrant manifesto on life is not thinking very critically.

forcibly removing [someone from this forum] just because you can and are in a position to do so.  if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer. 

This forum is completely outside the US constitution, it is privately owned and operated. At all times, you are free to post here only at the pleasure and with the permission of the owners. This board focuses on voluntaryism  and civil disobedience. The owners have been known to ban people on occasion who go in the complete opposite direction from that goal, but for the most part have been extremely tolerant of a lot of views, including yours. No one has threatened to ban you. Russel didn't say anything on this board about it. Kat specifically said that you should NOT be banned and has actively engaged in discussion/debate with you in this thread. You're the only one here who keeps bringing up the banning issue. Self fulfilling prophecy?

[leetninja]

im done.

[John Edward Mercier]

The US Constitution was written at a time when a slave was considered a domesticated animal.
The 3/5th provision was for national Census, and most likely the downfall of slavery. Very hard to suggest that slaves were property then should be accounted for in the division of representation... unlike other domesticated animals of the day.

As for the Katrina situation... not that I agree with it... but if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government. It falls back into the same problem as the slave issue.
If a right is protected from infringement by the US Constitution, and then in another part that protection of infringement is removed under circumstance... its unwise to use the document as the basis for your position.

[AntonLee]

come back soon Leetninja.