Civil War Soon? Utah Sheriffs threaten War against the Federal Government If they Try to Seize Gun V - Polidicks

This is gloriously ironic: Oppose gun laws by giving more reason to ban them.

[QUOTE=omggrass;39314050]Women need to be separated from society during the time of their periods. thats a CENTURY old law (Leviticus 15:19) dictated by the bible. So where did all the menses huts go?[/QUOTE] TIL the book of Leviticus is only 100 years old

[QUOTE=GunFox;39313520]Technically they have grounds to do so. Montana has already made the law and is still hashing it out. The Federal government can ONLY do what is allowed in the constitution. Anything not explicitly given to the federal government is explicitly reserved for the states. Legally, they control firearms through the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate trade. So, technically speaking, and this is what the law in Montana is based on, if the object in question never actually leaves the state and is manufactured locally, the federal government can't legally control it.[/QUOTE] Source or i call bullshit.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39313664]by that logic the medicinal marijuana laws don't violate federal law either.[/QUOTE] I have heard of a case in California that took place about 5-6 years ago that the feds broke into a woman's home and took her medical marijuana plants despite her state permits. Their reasoning was, and won in court, that her growing of those plants in the state hindered the black market interstate trade of weed, and therefore fell under the feds to take it. The feds just don't give a fuck anymore, they do as they please.

I believe everyone you wants a gun can own one for the right of self protection. i'v only playing on having a rifle and a handgun at some point down the road. might take it out shooting once in awhile and self protection.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;39313515]Fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] fact is his statement is perfectly accurate and depending on your POV the implication of his statement is also correce

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;39313515]Fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] The unamended Constitution classifies slaves as 3/5ths people.

Quick, everyone buy [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/3960/]Shattered Union[/url] to play out different scenarios and be PREPARED!

[QUOTE=The_Marine;39316690]Quick, everyone buy [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/3960/]Shattered Union[/url] to play out different scenarios and be PREPARED![/QUOTE] I'd rather point and laugh at both sides. Though surprisingly, the pro-gun side is acting more retarded than expected. It just further emphasizes that something must be done about the weapon legislations in general.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39316766]I'd rather point and laugh at both sides. Though surprisingly, the pro-gun side is acting more retarded than expected. It just further emphasizes that something must be done about the weapon legislations in general.[/QUOTE] Both sides are acting retarded, it's American legislative tradition.

Canada and Mexico should form a coalition and enact a no fly zone.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39317026]Canada and Mexico should form a coalition and enact a no fly zone.[/QUOTE] You're assuming they have an airforce. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] Like. Canada's main aircraft was our navy's fighter. 20 years ago.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39314814]Source or i call bullshit.[/QUOTE] On...what? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url] [quote]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote] Nowhere in the rest of the constitution does it give the government the right to restrict access to products of any variety. It does let them control trade between the nation and among the states, just not within the states. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause[/url] [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=omggrass;39314050]Women need to be separated from society during the time of their periods. thats a CENTURY old law (Leviticus 15:19) dictated by the bible. So where did all the menses huts go?[/QUOTE] I mean from the constitution, bud.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39313664]by that logic the medicinal marijuana laws don't violate federal law either.[/QUOTE] They don't. It is why the federal government has been so weird and inconsistent in how they handle them. If they fuck up and it gets brought before the US supreme court, the feds could lose a lot of power from the commerce clause. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Fort83;39317443]They don't seem to realize that threatening bloodshed is only straightening the pro-gunban people's argument.[/QUOTE] Not really. You have a group of law enforcement, who wouldn't be affected by any ban anyways, threatening to use the second amendment for its intended purpose. That is why the amendment is there.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;39313494]I'm fairly certain federal laws overrule the individual states' laws You know Because otherwise federations wouldn't make sense[/QUOTE] All though this is the case, we've got certain laws[as mentioned earlier in the thread] such as the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act"]Montana Firearms Freedom Act[/URL] which nullifies certain aspects of the National Firearm Act at state level. This law also inspired several others: [URL="http://firearmsfreedomact.com/"]Firearms Freedom Act Map[/URL] Into passing very similar legislation.

There will never be a mandatory gun confiscation in the United States. There are enough people that would rather shoot people trying to take their guns by force that it would be a huge problem. Big enough to possibly start a civil war

This whole gun thing is really clogging up the news.

I honestly hope this shit doesn't spread to New Mexico; my mum's going there in March and shit going down in NM would definitely put a damper on things to say the least.

I don't think this country needs further bloodshed. Why can't everyone just be friends. :(

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39317523]All though this is the case, we've got certain laws[as mentioned earlier in the thread] such as the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act"]Montana Firearms Freedom Act[/URL] which nullifies certain aspects of the National Firearm Act at state level. This law also inspired several others: [URL="http://firearmsfreedomact.com/"]Firearms Freedom Act Map[/URL] Into passing very similar legislation.[/QUOTE] Wow, I didn't know there were that many.

To everyone saying that this threat is just more reason to ban guns; No it's not. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against tyrannical government. A government that would be defined by its actions including the attempt to limit the constitution. The threat that man made is CONSTITUTIONAL. If a tyrannical government arises it is the people's duty to raise up arms against it. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] Also the 2nd amendment is not, nor ever will be, outdated.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39317523]All though this is the case, we've got certain laws[as mentioned earlier in the thread] such as the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act"]Montana Firearms Freedom Act[/URL] which nullifies certain aspects of the National Firearm Act at state level. This law also inspired several others: [URL="http://firearmsfreedomact.com/"]Firearms Freedom Act Map[/URL] Into passing very similar legislation.[/QUOTE] Yee my state introduced FFA #YouAin'tTakinMyGunsObamanation

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39318497]The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against tyrannical government.[/QUOTE] No it's to protect the security of the state. It's right there in the words.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39318763]No it's to protect the security of the state. It's right there in the words.[/QUOTE] The militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia is also a government force. Therefore the PEOPLE shall have the right to bear arms. It specifically differentiates from the people and the militia because the point is the allow the people to protect themselves from the militia. Given that they fought a war with people against the British militia, this would make far more sense.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39318819]The militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia is also a government force. Therefore the PEOPLE shall have the right to bear arms. It specifically differentiates from the people and the militia because the point is the allow the people to protect themselves from the militia. Given that they fought a war with people against the British militia, this would make far more sense.[/QUOTE] The Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as all able men over 18 and under 45, it's not a government organization. The people are the militia, and during the war they fought British Army regulars.

America needs more Federalism, this "state rights" thing is getting pretty worn out. Canada has all of its criminal laws managed by the federal government, which I think works fairly well.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39318819]The militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia is also a government force. Therefore the PEOPLE shall have the right to bear arms. It specifically differentiates from the people and the militia because the point is the allow the people to protect themselves from the militia. Given that they fought a war with people against the British militia, this would make far more sense.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying "it only applies to militias", as that issue was cleared up a long time ago by the supreme court. I'm saying there's nothing in the amendment that encourages firing on federal officials when you don't like their decisions, as many people seem to think [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;39318939] Canada has all of its criminal laws managed by the federal government, which I think works fairly well.[/QUOTE] It only works well when the federal government works well, there are clear issues popping up when it comes to drug laws. British Columbia is itching to go into full-on revolt mode

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39318941] [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] It only works well when the federal government works well, there are clear issues popping up when it comes to drug laws. British Columbia is itching to go into full-on revolt mode[/QUOTE] That's why we have the courts!

[QUOTE=Van-man;39313359]GG, now you're just further promoting taking guns away if you're ready to jump the gun instead of proper political action.[/QUOTE] theres very little proper about politics today, i hope you realize. But yeah.

Civil War would ruin shit, but I always thought we'd be better off if New England just sorta quietly seceded and became its own nation. Part of the American problem is the fact that it's just so big of a country.