Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Concealed Carry Now Legal in California

True, but from what I have observed there are many accomplished people in this guild. Most of us are well into our adulthood, this is the general topics thread, and I would assume that since this thread is so active that most of us have an interest in these topics or at least have input on said topic.

The below link is an account of a person that survived the Bosnian war. This is just one of many throughout history. This is precicely why the 2nd ammendment is worded like it is. It is unlikely that it would happen in the US at least to that degree, but it still could happen. The government could go Adolf on us or it could collapse, either way this article gives a tiny glimpse into the live of someone who lived it for a year and what it took to survive. His primary words of advice 1. have as many guns and ammo as possible, hide most of them in case of confiscation. 2. learn or know how to fix people or things.

One Year In Hell

LOL...I guess in my mind they'd be male cops in which case I'd either be praying they weren't strippers and/or punching my friends who set it up in the face. Good to know this is what you're into Hexen.

Vermi you're going to have to speak up, I can't hear you between them.

You still haven't articulated an argument, other than "the [C]onstitution is fragile." Which could mean anything. What it appears you are really trying to argue is that "if the government crosses the threshold of acceptable malleability of the constitution and into tyranny then we'll have no other choice." The "no other choice" is the use of violence against law enforcement or military personnel that attempt to enforce those laws.

It's a specious argument. I'm going to skip jumping through all the hoops, but essentially, what you are arguing is that you reserve the right to kill law enforcement and/or military personnel when they attempt to enforce laws that you believe have crossed the "acceptable malleability" of the constitution into "tyranny."

The terms you use "acceptable malleability" and "tyranny" are sufficiently vague and open to interpretation that the argument is almost meaningless. It could range from the obvious -- if your government is exterminating you Hitler style, then you can fight back. To the truly disturbing -- if you think it's "tyranny" to require background checks for guns, you are entitled to start shooting if they insist on enforcing the waiting period.

I'd recommend that anyone who thinks that way -- that people are entitled to armed, violent resistance when they disagree with the law -- to skip tonight's militia meeting and instead brush up on the philosophical underpinnings of a republican form of government. Because you really don't understand it.

*Must resist...*

What teriya is trying to say, if he's not trolling, is that The constitution like any law is open to interpretation. Each administration view it differently and interpret it based on which way the political wind is blowing. You're only protected by the law as long as the power that be deem you're not a threat. But once they think you are a threat, any law protecting you get throw out the window in the name of homeland security or whatever the latest far mongering craze is. The basic idea is that there's a "ruling class" that basically keep the citizen in check and solidify power for themselves by restricting weapon sales and such.

Now I personally believe that the bureaucracy is too large and diverse for any one group to maintain power or enact any form of institutionalized tyranny, but people can believe what they want. Either way, the correct way to change policies isn't to horde up guns in case you got to "defend yourself" against a cop. When you pull out a gun against a cop, you gotta make sure you're willing to trade your life for their because that's the only way it's going to end. You die as some craze gunman and the cop died a hero. The correct way in this modern age is to gather support and lobby for change in the political arena. The age of arm resistance is over, this is the age of information, propaganda, money, and public opinion.

This is what I'm talking about. If you think this:



Then this:



I mean, this shit is like 5th grade level. Who interprets laws, stare decisis, and what "the rule of law" means. Seriously -- stop posting and research.

And I agree with your second paragraph Domon.

And -- congrats us. This thread is dominating in total views.

i came for this.

OK, ok, let's see...

Who interprets laws... Well the supreme court does that, but our president says that he doesn't care what the supreme court says and that he's doing what's best for the People. So the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch can interpret laws that the Legislature passes, cool.

Stare...wha?
"a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice"
So pretty much the court will look at what has happened in the past and use that precedent to move forward, otherwise they make their decision based on good faith or common sense?
What was the stare decisis when the Japanese were put into internment camps, they're riceniggers so they have no rights?

Rule of law... The internet says that there are 3 contexts, Rule According to Law, Rule Under Law, and Rule According to Higher Law... using my 5th grade context clue skills I'm thinking it's 'Rule Under Law,'

That's good, but who makes sure that the authority is in check? Who makes sure that the Constitution is being upheld? The 12th Man. Us U.S. citizens.

Thanks for expanding my horizons, what else should I research?