N2Deep wrote:
VinTek wrote:
Actually, I don't think a ban is possible given the 2nd Amendment. The comparison to other countries isn't particularly valid because the right to bear arms isn't in their Constitution. And there are a whole lot of hoops to go through before a Constitutional Amendment can go into effect.
Show me the Constitutional Amendment that states you give up your right to a trial to prove your guilt. Last time I checked there isn't one. However the NDAA plainly states that you can be hold indefinitely without a trial. This violates the 6th Amendment... but yet they still do it. Do you really think they give a crap about the 2nd if they are willing to violate the 6th?
Wikipedia wrote:
Actually, the detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".
Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.
Do you honestly believe that we didn't do similar things against British sympathizers in the War of 1812 or to Confederate sympathizers in the Civil War? Even in if they were American citizens? Don't forget, Lincoln and Grant personally suspended
habeus corpus during that time. And yet the Republic persists, a century and a half later.
And yes, I'm aware that Michigan has passed a block against any state cooperation with federal officials who wish to detain Americans under sections 1021 and 1022.
Interestingly enough, the NDAA has so far passed all legal challenges. And lest you believe that the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the Administration, just this past week, the Court has ruled Obama's recess appointments Unconstitutional. That's the way the Constitution works: a system of checks and balances. No doubt any weapons ban will be challenged in court. And no doubt, the Supreme Court will weigh in. If you have believe in the Constitution, you have to believe in
all of it, not just one or two sentences. You can't cherry-pick the parts you like to defend.
N2Deep wrote:
VinTek wrote:
Bottom line, I believe in our system of government. We decide how we want our country to be via ballots, not bullets. True, we've defended our identity where the rule of law reigns supreme with bullets, but we've never lost sight of what we're about. We've been through invasion (War of 1812), Civil War, 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, assassinations not only of presidents but of candidates, riots, and a host of other troubles. And through it all, we've never had an overthrow of the government or let an administration in power subvert who we are. We have always held our elections on schedule and transferred power peacefully. People have died to make that happen.
Never before has the government attempted to take so much away from the people... and the people are getting fed up. I read an article today where folks (law enforcement included) are getting ready to turn their nose up at the new NY gun ban. Their mindset is... come get em, but you better bring help.
That's reckless talk. I talk and work with people whose job it is to put themselves in harm's way (I work on a military program). While there are some who doubtless would sympathize with your view, the vast majority would have to stand against you. You'd be outmanned and outgunned. And the thing is, I don't see the point. Shouldn't we supposed to be working together to make our country a better place instead of taking up arms against each other?
N2Deep wrote:
Because this is not the same country that many of Americans have died to defend. The powers that be are hell bent on destroying this country. It doesn't matter if you wanted Obummer or Romney... its the same coin just a different side. Until we get away from a two party system the people will always suffer. The folks that call themselves patriots are refering to a country that was governed by the United States Constitution, not the current govt that is governed by greed. This used to be a great country... sadly it isn't anymore.
Now that's just extremist. Since when have we
not been a 2-party system? Since when has a 3rd party ever been anything but a spoiler? If you believe that things are going to hell, then start a 3rd party! Work within the system instead of trying to take up arms against it! The country was founded because we had taxation without representation. Well, you have representation! And you choose your representatives via the ballot box. You can't call yourselves patriots because you defend one sentence in the Constitution and then throw the rest of the Constitution under the bus. You can't call yourself a patriot because of 1 sentence and then call anyone who defends the rest of the document a sheep. It just doesn't hold water.
