Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
    We don't really have much of that anymore. Like I said, federally appointed judges can just wave a magic wand and get w/e changes they want. At this point, what can our representatives really do?
    Not anything. Not even most things. Even a unanimous court can't do just anything. Especially since the court gets its power from the respect people have for it and going all Olympian would tend to kill that

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

      Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
      As spoken by your neighbourhood friendly despot dictator...
      You think the community organizers, despot wannabes, and closet dictators don't know how ignorant and apathetic many U.S. citizens are? How do you think the gun grabbers are able to opperate?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

        Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
        I was not there, but I have read a bit about it.

        If you have something demonstrating that Gage tried to take firearms away from individual families, I would be honestly interested in seeing it. I know a little bit about the period and I sincerely don't think that happened, certainly not on any significant scale. The two most well known instances of Gage trying to secure arms/munitions (Concord and Somersville) clearly don't fit that definition.
        Again humor is total lost on people on the internet. Your wording came across as if you were actually there. I was trying to be facetious but it obviously fell on deaf ears.

        As for the confiscation, the only reason that there were caches of weapons and powder was that back then the black powder was more unstable than it is now and very dangerous to keep in quantity in someones house. The British themselves had the same type of storage. Taking the powder and guns that were stored for families was taking it from everyone. The minutemen were NOT a true military but a loosely organized militia. Not all met at the "weekly" practice shoot to make sure they were the best or at least standard.

        Are we talking about the same Intolerable Acts here?

        The Mass. Government Act (the most egregious) unilaterally changed the government of Mass.
        The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston, and thus threatened to ruin most of the residents
        The Administration of Justice Act moved trials for royal officials out of the region
        The Quartering Act allowed British troops to be quartered in unoccupied private dwellings

        They were all certain terrible and coercive, but none of them involved duties or taxation. The only one that involved money at all was the Port Act, which would be lifted if the city of Boston repaid the East India Company for the tea that had been destroyed in the Boston Tea Party.
        I guess it is a matter of perspective. The Intolerable acts were made to force the colonies to pay their taxes and pay reparations for the Tea Party. Yet at the same time, the Townshend Act for example was not listed as one of the Intolerable Acts but was put in place along with them and consisted of increased and additional duties on the Colonists.


        YOU are not the people of Massachusetts. So no, you individually do not have control over who passes laws for the state.
        [/quote]

        BUT the essence of the Republic is that one person can make a difference AND that the minority will not be bowled over by the Majority. If I had millions to spend on legislators then I would be able to as one person influence laws and voting. If I hit the mega millions for 100's of millions I would most likely be able to control enough to get laws I want, at least for awhile. Isn't that what liberals always complain about when the GOP passes laws they don't like or blocks them, the Koch Brothers, some rich guy, some big buck company. BUT when it is their side of the tracks it is okay. I detest the LEFT AND RIGHT for this. Term Limits and laws that punish this type of behavior are needed.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

          Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
          I guess it is a matter of perspective. The Intolerable acts were made to force the colonies to pay their taxes and pay reparations for the Tea Party. Yet at the same time, the Townshend Act for example was not listed as one of the Intolerable Acts but was put in place along with them and consisted of increased and additional duties on the Colonists.
          All the Townshend Act taxes (except the one on tea) were repealed long before 1775, and the Tea Act actually made the tea (even with taxes) cheaper than it had been before.

          I think these days we often lose track of the fact that colonial Americans were subject to only a very, very small level of taxation. They paid far fewer taxes than the people living in Britain and far fewer than they would pay in the years immediately after securing their own nation. The Patriot's didn't have a problem with the notion of taxation in general, nor were British taxes simply "too high." The problem was that they were being taxed without representation, that the people had no say in their own taxes.


          Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
          BUT the essence of the Republic is that one person can make a difference AND that the minority will not be bowled over by the Majority. If I had millions to spend on legislators then I would be able to as one person influence laws and voting. If I hit the mega millions for 100's of millions I would most likely be able to control enough to get laws I want, at least for awhile. Isn't that what liberals always complain about when the GOP passes laws they don't like or blocks them, the Koch Brothers, some rich guy, some big buck company. BUT when it is their side of the tracks it is okay. I detest the LEFT AND RIGHT for this. Term Limits and laws that punish this type of behavior are needed.
          As to the issue of minority rights, that's a Constitutional question, one the courts will have to eventually settle.

          When it comes to a few rich/powerful people getting the laws they want against the wishes of the population at large...is that what's happening in CT? What is public sentiment on mandating registration?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

            Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
            All the Townshend Act taxes (except the one on tea) were repealed long before 1775, and the Tea Act actually made the tea (even with taxes) cheaper than it had been before.

            I think these days we often lose track of the fact that colonial Americans were subject to only a very, very small level of taxation. They paid far fewer taxes than the people living in Britain and far fewer than they would pay in the years immediately after securing their own nation. The Patriot's didn't have a problem with the notion of taxation in general, nor were British taxes simply "too high." The problem was that they were being taxed without representation, that the people had no say in their own taxes.




            As to the issue of minority rights, that's a Constitutional question, one the courts will have to eventually settle.

            When it comes to a few rich/powerful people getting the laws they want against the wishes of the population at large...is that what's happening in CT? What is public sentiment on mandating registration?
            It doesn't NEED to be settled in the courts. Its BEEN settled in the courts. See DC Heller, Mcdonald Chicago, and now San Diego Peruta. Not to mention the plain language of the 2nd amendment. It doesn't MATTER what the sheep want. They don't have the right to gainsay anyone. And that was done ON PURPOSE. For JUST this reason.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

              Originally posted by reality View Post
              It doesn't NEED to be settled in the courts. Its BEEN settled in the courts. See DC Heller, Mcdonald Chicago, and now San Diego Peruta. Not to mention the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
              Great, if the matter is settled law, then let the courts strike it down. Let the system do what it's supposed to do. Protest, demonstrate, engage in civil disobedience if you really want to make a point. But lets not leap the "revolution" or start shooting people because we're impatient.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                Great, if the matter is settled law, then let the courts strike it down. Let the system do what it's supposed to do. Protest, demonstrate, engage in civil disobedience if you really want to make a point. But lets not leap the "revolution" or start shooting people because we're impatient.
                You have no duty to comply with an unconstitutional law. Arguably you have a duty to resist it. See the man in the news recently who shot a cop serving a no knock kick door warrant, and got off even though he WAS growing pot in his house.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                  Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                  Great, if the matter is settled law, then let the courts strike it down. Let the system do what it's supposed to do. Protest, demonstrate, engage in civil disobedience if you really want to make a point. But lets not leap the "revolution" or start shooting people because we're impatient.
                  It becomes a revolution when the government does what it wants despite obvious law, public concensus and opinions of the court.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                    Originally posted by reality View Post
                    You have no duty to comply with an unconstitutional law. Arguably you have a duty to resist it.
                    Who gets to decide if a given law is unconstitutional? Each individual for themselves? Whoever has enough money/firepower to get their way?
                    Again, let the system do what it's supposed to do. If the court strikes down the law and THEN the state tries to enforce it anyway there will be a duty to resist it.

                    I have little respect for someone who is willing to take violent action against a police officer doing his duty on the basis of "It seems to me that this law is unconstitutional." The personal opinion of the individual on constitutionality is not sufficient when we start talking about bloodshed.

                    Originally posted by reality View Post
                    See the man in the news recently who shot a cop serving a no knock kick door warrant, and got off even though he WAS growing pot in his house.
                    You mean Henry Goedrich Magee of Texas? He avoided being indicted because the grand jury agreed that he had no way of knowing that the people crashing into his house were cops and reasonably assumed they were criminals. He wasn't making any sort of constitutional statement or resisting anything.

                    Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                    It becomes a revolution when the government does what it wants despite obvious law, public concensus and opinions of the court.
                    Ok.
                    Well, the law is pretty obvious; it says you have to register these guns.
                    What is the public consensus on the law? (And what is the public consensus on violent resistance? I may not like a given law, but I probably like the idea of people violently resisting it even less. I don't think I'm alone in this tendency.)
                    As I said above, we owe it to society to at least wait for the opinion of the courts to be rendered on this law before threatening "revolution."

                    Thus far, I don't see any evidence that the law, public consensus, and the courts aren't actually on the government's side here. But again, I welcome evidence to the contrary from peopel who are better informed.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                      Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                      Who gets to decide if a given law is unconstitutional? Each individual for themselves? Whoever has enough money/firepower to get their way?
                      Again, let the system do what it's supposed to do. If the court strikes down the law and THEN the state tries to enforce it anyway there will be a duty to resist it.

                      I have little respect for someone who is willing to take violent action against a police officer doing his duty on the basis of "It seems to me that this law is unconstitutional." The personal opinion of the individual on constitutionality is not sufficient when we start talking about bloodshed.



                      You mean Henry Goedrich Magee of Texas? He avoided being indicted because the grand jury agreed that he had no way of knowing that the people crashing into his house were cops and reasonably assumed they were criminals. He wasn't making any sort of constitutional statement or resisting anything.



                      Ok.
                      Well, the law is pretty obvious; it says you have to register these guns.
                      What is the public consensus on the law? (And what is the public consensus on violent resistance? I may not like a given law, but I probably like the idea of people violently resisting it even less. I don't think I'm alone in this tendency.)
                      As I said above, we owe it to society to at least wait for the opinion of the courts to be rendered on this law before threatening "revolution."

                      Thus far, I don't see any evidence that the law, public consensus, and the courts aren't actually on the government's side here. But again, I welcome evidence to the contrary from peopel who are better informed.
                      At the most basic level each individual must make choices for themselves and suffer the consequences of same.
                      Go read heller and mcdonald. The Court ALREADY ruled. What the state is doing is what you suggest we should wait on them to do.
                      Good thing we aren't proceeding purely from personal opinion then eh? Read those cases.

                      Sure he was. People crashed into his house unannounced and he shot them without needing to id them first and then suffered no charges for same. You don't have to do it with intent to make a statement.

                      And again public consensus has nothing to do with rights. REPUBLIC NOT a DEMOCRACY.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        And again public consensus has nothing to do with rights. REPUBLIC NOT a DEMOCRACY.
                        Public consensus in the governments favor, at least in this case, would enable the altering of the 2nd amendment. Public consensus opposed to the government would produce a mob large and surly enough to make the politicians and the enforcers they send change their mind.

                        Neither change the truth that means to viable self-defense is a natural right.

                        Originally posted by John F. Kennedy
                        Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                          Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                          Public consensus in the governments favor, at least in this case, would enable the altering of the 2nd amendment. Public consensus opposed to the government would produce a mob large and surly enough to make the politicians and the enforcers they send change their mind.

                          Neither change the truth that means to viable self-defense is a natural right.
                          Repeal the 2nd amendment and cause a civil war. I certainly wouldn't stand for it.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                            Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                            Public consensus in the governments favor, at least in this case, would enable the altering of the 2nd amendment. Public consensus opposed to the government would produce a mob large and surly enough to make the politicians and the enforcers they send change their mind.

                            Neither change the truth that means to viable self-defense is a natural right.
                            No problem, despite Reality's statement if you can get 3/4ths of the States to Ratify an Amendment that repeals the 2nd no problem, thats 75% of the States or a very large majority wanting this change. I think that is what 37 States? No Problem you get 38 States to ratify it and you have your Repeal. The Constitution is designed to keep the Minority from taking away the Rights that are G-D given, Creator Given, whatever supreme being given. The Constitution holds little support for those who do not believe in a supreme being though. Not trying to get into a theology discussion.

                            So get 3/4ths and have at it.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                              If this is validated in the next couple days I will call it a Victory for Liberty and the Constitution and a sign that a peaceful solution to the Socialist creep in the US is possible.

                              http://www.callthecops.net/connectic...ps-state-list/

                              Plans for these confiscations hit a snag when a legislative intern dared to ask a question. “Who will be going door to door to take all the guns away?” asked the 21-year-old college senior.

                              Reportedly multiple people in the room in the most sarcastic voices they could muster said “the police”.

                              The unnamed intern then pointed at the list and said, “my dad’s name is on the list, and he is the police chief. I see three other names on this list of family members, all cops.”

                              With in hours a print off of all sworn Law Enforcement officers in the state was obtained. Comparisons of the list of gun owners who failed to comply with registration requirements and sworn LEOs showed a startling figure. Just over 68% of Connecticut cops had failed to register firearms according to the new law.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Re: CT moving to confiscate - Litmus test

                                Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                                If this is validated in the next couple days I will call it a Victory for Liberty and the Constitution and a sign that a peaceful solution to the Socialist creep in the US is possible.

                                http://www.callthecops.net/connectic...ps-state-list/
                                cmon dude: This site is a satire of the current state of Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting and Emergency Medical work. Stories posted here are not real and you should not assume them to have any basis in any real fact. More ..."

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X