What "Independence" REALLY means

A Completely Different Proposal for Gun Control:

First of all, it is constitutionally-sound to keep weapons out of the hands of those who might be reasonably assumed to have violent tendencies; otherwise, the background checks we already have would never have stood up to the battering they would have undergone in the courts by zealous gun lobbyists.
This means that people who belong to factions that openly advocate or have a history of violence against US citizens or government agencies, or individuals who openly express such ideas, can and should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Obviously, simply being a skeptic or critic of the US government alone would be insufficient; but those who unambiguously express violent tendencies should be subject to an explicit legal requirement to surrender their firearms.

Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Read further:

Second, we must remember that the US constitution explicitly gives the government the power to suppress revolts.  Most gun nuts seem to hold the constitutionally unsound idea (which no serious scholar of constitutional law agrees with) that the Second Amendment is somehow about their right to fight against a "tyrranical government" but in reality, the federal government actually has sweeping Constitutional powers to keep the peace.  It seems logical to me that it should be within the powers of the US government to seize firearms and prevent the sale of weapons to people who advocate the violent overthrow of the government for this reason as well.  Our government, however, has been incredibly lax in using this power and I think it's time they used it.  Bundy Ranch and Leith were our wake-up call: there are violent, dangerous people who want to overthrow our government and impose something far worse than our borderline plutocracy on each and every one of us, they are armed, and it would be criminal to allow them to continue owning firearms of any sort.

Oh yeah, the emphasis is definitely added!


"We All Doin' What We can!"


Having read all the above, you have to ask yourself: isn't this the same situation as that which Americans faced at Lexington and Concord in 1775?

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were ordered to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.

Hmm ... confiscation of privately owned firearms.  To the fanatics at The Daily Kos, that sounds like a "violent overthrow of the government".

(And of course, that is exactly what happened ... to the result which most Americans today are celebrating!) Exactly how would "Rose City Rose" have reacted if she lived under the British Boot 238 years ago, instead of in the insulated, protected environment which America represents today?)

To me it seems sort of ... I don't know, kinda/sorta like ... UNPATRIOTIC for Liberal Democrats to be biting the hand that feeds them (given Food Stamps and other social programs .. literally) on the day when we celebrate our Independence from Foreign Rule.



Because the Libtards seem to have skipped out on their Civil Rights class in high school .. or they have been educated in a Liberal University ... the whole point of the Second Amendment is that we do not WANT to have another American Revolution.

You know it's gonna be ... All Right!


We've done that once, and once is enough for brother to fight brother, and we've done it twice; the Revolution (sorry, Rose, can't avoid the word) and again during the Civil War.

That just SUCKS, and here is "Rose", proposing agitation which might, under the worst circumstances,  result in another Revolution.


We don't want that.    And we would prefer that you not agitate for a completely WRONG solution to a "problem" which doesn't exist

Americans ... believe in INDEPENDENCE.  They don't believe in Governmental interference in their constitutional rights.

Rose, you may not like the way Americans celebrate their freedoms.  But when you advocate the arbitrary evocation of Governmental Rights ... you show that you don't understand America.

The Constitution was designed to acknowledge the rights of The People, and to delineate the rights of The Government.  It wasn't intended to limit the rights of the people, as you suggest!

And again, in case you missed it .. it LIMITS the duties of the Government (which has NO rights!)

I'll say it again: the government has NO rights.  It has duties, and restrictions.  No rights.  

If The Government so egregiously abrogates the rights of its citizens, then it not only MAY be, but SHOULD be vigorously opposed.  That's what Independence Day is all about.

And YOU want to deprive us of our rights to choose the government we're willing accept?

You propose that the government has "... sweeping Constitutional powers to keep the peace"?  Where do you find that in the Constitution?

When you say you are "no constitutional lawyer", its patently obvious that this is the only truth you have to offer.

(H/T "Joe" The View From North Central Idaho)
x
x