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

[QUOTE=FFStudios;39319283]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.[/QUOTE] And you don't think 50 independent nations wouldn't want to kill each other on a daily basis? I mean the main motive for war is generally food and land, get rid of either and bloodshed is inevitable.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39314424]Kickstart a civil war? Does that mean I get a making-of documentary if I donate $50?[/QUOTE] If you donate $500 or more you get an assault weapon and get to name a battle :v:

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39319416]And you don't think 50 independent nations wouldn't want to kill each other on a daily basis? I mean the main motive for war is generally food and land, get rid of either and bloodshed is inevitable.[/QUOTE] that doesn't explain why any of the states would want to fight. state relations has been tense sometimes, but they generally get along ok.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39318941]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 [/QUOTE] They just finished ousting a tyrannical government and proceeded to design a new type of country with a huge amount of attention paid to ensuring each branch is kept in check by another and that all serve the interests of the people and the member states. Furthermore the ideas they present come from John Locke, who very much supported overthrowing any government who fails to serve the people. The entire revolutionary war was kicked off by British soldiers moving to take firearm caches from civilians. There is far more evidence suggesting the guns are to be used against our government than any other government.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39319416]And you don't think 50 independent nations wouldn't want to kill each other on a daily basis? I mean the main motive for war is generally food and land, get rid of either and bloodshed is inevitable.[/QUOTE] Obviously 50 wouldn't get along well, but if we divided into regions of 10 or so states things could be somewhat stable. Still a bad plan but it'd be a slightly less violent one. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] Automerge

[QUOTE=catbarf;39318920]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.[/QUOTE] Militias were very much government organizations. Standing armies are a new invention. The British regulars were militiamen. Very small numbers of professional full time soldiers exist outside of wartime during the era. The militia act EXISTS to press everyone into service of the government in the event of invasion. It further defines militia as being a government organization and not a civilian one.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39319615]Standing armies are a new invention.[/QUOTE] The Roman Legions would beg to differ.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39319637]The Roman Legions would beg to differ.[/QUOTE] I should say standing armies being common is a new thing. The Romans are historically noteworthy specifically for having standing armies. The exception that proves my point.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39319637]The Roman Legions would beg to differ.[/QUOTE] im pretty sure the roman legion were levied(so more like a militia).

[QUOTE=GunFox;39319665]I should say standing armies being common is a new thing. The Romans are historically noteworthy specifically for having standing armies. The exception that proves my point.[/QUOTE] There are a few [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_armies]other early examples[/url] but for the most part you're right. I thought the Greek city states had standing armies though.

oh nvm i'm thinking of the roman republic that was levied. i think the empire had volunteer units.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39319694]im pretty sure the roman legion were levied(so more like a militia).[/QUOTE] The Romans did have professional salaried soldiers. The term salary even comes from Roman soldiers. There are several theories as to why, though I favor the idea that it was an allowance for the purchase of salt. Salt being necessary in the era for a wide variety of things.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39319705]oh nvm i'm thinking of the roman republic that was levied. i think the empire had volunteer units.[/QUOTE] Mix of both. Citizens, for the most part, served compulsory twenty-five year terms until one of the Emperors (One of the "Five Good" ones I think) reformed them, I believe, in addition to large amounts of volunteers.. And auxiliaries had a fair amount of volunteers as well.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39319698]There are a few [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_armies]other early examples[/url] but for the most part you're right. I thought the Greek city states had standing armies though.[/QUOTE] I believe the Greek city states were interesting in that they equipped their conscripts very well. They also provided them with decent training. The equipment provided however was very expensive and was considered loaned. Losing your armor or weapon would not end well for you. EDIT: Excluding Sparta. Where they were less of a standing army and more of a bunch of soldiers that occasionally had to go farm.

A total ban isn't in the cards, but if it was, the sheriffs would still have legal ground to stand on.

[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] at the moment it seems the court dismissed it since you know, states don't get to overrule the federal government

[QUOTE=GunFox;39319766]I believe the Greek city states were interesting in that they equipped their conscripts very well. They also provided them with decent training. The equipment provided however was very expensive and was considered loaned. Losing your armor or weapon would not end well for you.[/QUOTE] Some of them conscripted in peace or war too. In peace they built roads and planted crops, in war they died and sometimes didn't. No match for Rome, of course, but a good system for fighting your pissant neighbors.

[QUOTE=scout1;39319775]at the moment it seems the court dismissed it since you know, states don't get to overrule the federal government[/QUOTE] The court dismissed it because they were trying to prematurely hash the problem out in court. In the United States to get something fixed or decided by the judicial system you generally need to have someone break the law in question. Rather than wait for some poor bastard to wind up caught in the middle of a legal battle, the issue was pressed into court. It then got thrown out because there was no claim. Basically nobody has violated the law yet. Conflicting laws can exist, but until somebody breaks one, there isn't much we can do with the judicial system.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39319578]They just finished ousting a tyrannical government and proceeded to design a new type of country with a huge amount of attention paid to ensuring each branch is kept in check by another and that all serve the interests of the people and the member states. Furthermore the ideas they present come from John Locke, who very much supported overthrowing any government who fails to serve the people. [/QUOTE] Exactly: [quote][b]Abraham Lincoln:[/b] "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."[/quote] [quote][b]Thomas Jefferson:[/b] "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[/quote] [quote][b]Patrick Henry:[/b] "If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us."[/quote] [quote][b]Benjamin Franklin:[/b] "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." [/quote] Should they ever come to take American's guns, the American people will be in their full constitutional right to oppose this. Restrictions on the criminal and mentally ill is common sense, but there should be oversight on even that.

I hate my state sometimes. Seriously Utah is absolutely retarded at dealing with problems such as these and makes dumb decisions.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39318763]No it's to protect the security of the state. It's right there in the words.[/QUOTE] And to enforce your ownership of slaves. People forget that. (Seriously, look up the wording to the amendment before it got amended, the militias stated in it were in force to chase down runaway slaves) Your so-called immutable constitution has been changed several times, and is inherently malleable. America's religious-like adherence to it does the nation absolutely not credit.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39319578]They just finished ousting a tyrannical government and proceeded to design a new type of country with a huge amount of attention paid to ensuring each branch is kept in check by another and that all serve the interests of the people and the member states.[/quote] [quote]The entire revolutionary war was kicked off by British soldiers moving to take firearm caches from civilians.[/QUOTE] The American Revolution was a much more cynical affair, and the Revolution was not in the genuine interest of the people, (much to the extent things got worse under the new regime).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39322819]The American Revolution was a much more cynical affair, and the Revolution was not in the genuine interest of the people, (much to the extent things got worse under the new regime).[/QUOTE] depends on how you measure these things.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39322875]depends on how you measure these things.[/QUOTE] Inflation, requisitions of food/supplies, forced emigration, higher taxes, little change in political representation and removal of British subsidies.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39318763]No it's to protect the security of the state. It's right there in the words.[/QUOTE] Of a [I][B]free[/B][/I] state. Taking away freedoms isn't what free states do.

they also got proper political representation(at least part of the population did :\). i would say political freedom is slightly more important than economic prosperity.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39322757]And to enforce your ownership of slaves. People forget that. (Seriously, look up the wording to the amendment before it got amended, the militias stated in it were in force to chase down runaway slaves) Your so-called immutable constitution has been changed several times, and is inherently malleable. America's religious-like adherence to it does the nation absolutely not credit.[/QUOTE] Zeke is Canadian.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39323001]they also got proper political representation(at least part of the population did :\). i would say political freedom is slightly more important than economic prosperity.[/QUOTE] They didn't really get political freedom though. Britain was already a pretty free country and left the colonies to themselves much of the time. Granted that they did block some laws being passed in the colonies, but most of them were laws intended to do the exact opposite (I believe one governor banned new towns being enfranchised because property developers were abusing it to gerrymander votes). Also things like the tea act actually reduced the price of tea and decreased government regulation into trade.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39313538]But I agree that laws and constitutional laws should be edited/removed for the better, as times change. [/QUOTE] The problem with that is it's an entirely subjective debate. Anti-gun arguments are always based on freak occurrences or irrelevant statistics from other countries, whereas the "pro-gun" argument in relation to AWB concludes that assault weapons pose no significant threat to American society nor do they increase violent crime rates, nor do they even fucking [I]stem[/I] the chances of a freak mass shooting indecent occurring. Just because some people feel irrationally unsafe with any presence of guns in their society is not valid reason to throw out an amendment [I]that stands beside[/I] rights like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If the second amendment just gets tossed out the window because "it's outdated" then how is it out of the question for some asshole to question other amendments just because it suits their opinions? Was the Patriot Act justified because "the 1st and 4th amendments are outdated?" To clarify though I personally think "it's in the second amendment" is a shitty fallback defense for gun ownership, but at the end of the day it needs to be treated as seriously as any of the other amendments because clearly the people how founded the country in the first place took it as seriously as concepts such as free speech.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39313538]Well it sets a good basis of laws, or so. But I agree that laws and constitutional laws should be edited/removed for the better, as times change. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] then again I don't really give a shit about politics so I'm an idiot in that regard.[/QUOTE] It is extremely possible to edit the Constitution. All that's required is a new constitutional amendment. The way the Constitution is rigged though, it requires a massive amount of the majority to want the amendment pass. In this way, only things that are [I]really fucking important[/I] get changed in the Constitution.