Page 5 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

02 Mar 2015, 5:09 pm

Dox47, I'm not going to go back and forth any further with you over this hypothetical scenario, but I do disagree strongly with how you see this conflict panning out. Rest assured I've never read a page of Tom Clancy. Our predictions of human behavior vary too widely to find any common ground, and our assumptions of how the domestic terrorists would be organized and how the government would respond to this kind of situation are very far apart.

What I don't understand is why people would see the government as illegitimate, so much so as to become murderous terrorists in order to get their way. Our government is populated by politicians elected by the people, if they decide to change the laws, then that is legitimate. If someone disagrees and uses violence as a means to get their way, they seem much more like a member of al-Queda than an American who makes a positive contribution to society.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Mar 2015, 9:09 pm

to be fair the A10 has mostly been used for close ground support. as our enemies don't use tanks. its loved by the troops for its ability to stay on scene for a long time raining down pain, loved by pilots for being able to take hits and make it home. it was designed with open conflict with the russians and there by taking out their tanks though.

as for insurgents. so you're saying none of them have families? they are all orphans? most have families. a lot of them have multiple wives and bunch of kids. who unfortunately get killed in the cross file. they're regular people mislead to believe they are fighting for a noble cause. here. people would fight for their families, so they families could be safe and free. soldiers will go through hell for the guy next to them imagine what they'd do if their family was the ones next to them?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Mar 2015, 9:12 pm

imagine if tomorrow the government passes laws that make being black illegal, and order all blacks to be rounded up, deported or killed if they resist. would you see this as a legit government just cause they went about it in a semi legal way?

when the government does super wrong bad things legally they cease being legit in the eyes of the people. anything can be made legal, that doesn't make it right.

duch people much like the revolutionaries of the founders won't see them selfs as terrorist. the world and the england all called americans terrorists for their actions and if we'd lost it would have gone down in history as such.

if the possible event happens and the people you call terrorist manage to change the gov, they will be called heros and saviors of the republic. one mans terrorist is another mans hero. to what title wins goes to the victor.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Mar 2015, 9:23 pm

also imagine this is pass, and the whole conservative/republican side disagrees.. say 49% disagree, while 51% passed it similar numbers to how obama was elected. now what you have isn't a terrorist but possible civil war. some states have already passed laws say they will not enforce any federal gun controls laws, so if the feds disband the 2nd amendment they won't support it and will arrest any federal agents caught trying to. now imagine they try the result is the state decides to leave. or worse you have atf/military fighting state troops, sheriffs, local police and national guard. texas has its own power gride, its own branch of air and army, i think they started stockpiling their own gold. they make a lot of the oil/gas. could see a possible states alling and forming around texas. guns/2nd amendment is very very important to lot of people and to some states. they won't go after it til they have slowly removed everything it protects til all that remains is the words on the paper and all guns have already been removed and destroyed. not going happen. just not worth the possible results and death tolls, no democrat politician wants that to be on their record.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

02 Mar 2015, 9:33 pm

Okay I couldn't resist.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
You didn't really address the other points I made on this hypothetical situation, but straw man arguments are always a way to make you feel good about how smart you are.


Such as? Your argument seems to be 'the US military is so technologically advanced that resistance would be futile', which I refuted. If you're going to claim that you're being straw-manned, it helps if you point out where.


That's not really my argument. See, it's difficult to have a conversation with you when you misrepresent what I say. For instance, the surveillance in the US is clearly in the hands of the FBI and CIA, not military. When did I say military technology? Never. And there are other factors to consider, which I tried to address but will clarify below.

And just because you say you refute an argument, doesn't mean you actually refuted it. You don't get to be the arbiter when you're biased towards one side of the debate.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
I like how you didn't include all the local police forces when assessing the numbers of personnel who would be involved with fighting the insurgency. Please explain to me how this would go more, wise sage. You've clearly thought of all the variables.


Same as the military, only with less equipment and training and even more vulnerability, as they don't have barracks to live on. Ever seen the cops shoot? I have, hence part of the reason that I don't really consider them much of an issue, especially as they'd have many of the same divisions in loyalty that the military would.


Yes, everyone knows that cops will break ranks so join terrorists who kill cops. They are notorious for abandoning their brothers to join groups who murder innocent civilians.

It's still over a million more boots on the ground, many of whom know the ins and outs of local communities. I'm sure they know who militant gun owners are, and that information could be quite useful. More surveillance, and it has nothing to do with military technology.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
Americans are mostly soft though, when faced with the prospect of death they will put down their firearms.


Cite? Also, we're talking over 100 million people just among the directly gun owning, which as I previously said, means that only a small fraction need to do anything to cause serious trouble.


I cite sources in my dissertation, not for internet discussions. Sorry but it's not worth the effort. I noticed you don't have any citations either, but I'm not asinine enough to ask for them.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
They are not used to living in huts and barely having enough food and water to live. Real insurgents don't have loving families and big homes they would risk losing.


Who said anything about living in huts? We're not talking about Red Dawn here, you don't need to go off and live in the woods to occasionally murder a cop or a soldier or a politician, and if you're careful and don't talk about it, it's not even difficult to get away with. Crimes are typically solved after the fact by uncovering connections between the victim and the perpetrator, making random killings very difficult to solve barring a stupid mistake by the killer; again, maybe actually learn about things before posting?


You misunderstood me, maybe I wasn't clear. The types of people who typically engage in guerrilla warfare are extremely poor, hungry, angry young men with no political voice. I think the reason such people are willing to do so is because they literally have nothing to lose.

My observations of humans, along with research in sociology and psychology, have led me to believe that people will not engage in risky behavior that can lead to death, torture, incarceration, and loss of income for their families unless there is a significant reward. The minor political victory of murdering an innocent person to make a point about the legality of gun ownership seems to me to be much too small of an incentive to make such a great risk, particularly when there is no tangible benefits for the person pulling the trigger. In Iraq and Palestine, people have nothing, and will blow themselves up. Here, I don't see that happening.

And that does not factor in the moral implications of murdering an innocent person to make a political point. I think most Americans would have a hard time justifying that kind of action against a fellow countrymen to themselves.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
The amount of surveillance in the US is extensive, so any insurgents could be easily tracked and wiped out. In fact, I'm sure the government already has a list of the majority of people who would lead the insurgents. And it would be easy to infiltrate insurgent groups and take out the leaders because they're all American who speak English, not Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani. The idea that you could effectively organize an insurgency in the US as easily in other countries is way off base.


"Take out the leaders"? More Clancy... Technology cuts both ways, strong encryption is widely available, and if you really want to be secure, one time texts are actually unbreakable. Further, who needs leaders? All you need is a list on a website of who to kill and where they live, it's pretty simple. You can't seem to grasp that this is not a conventional conflict being discussed, this is the government being seen as illegitimate by a large enough number of people that actual fighting breaks out, which means a hostile environment for agents of the state, English speaking or not. Troops in the street and commando raids mean nothing when the people ordering those things are afraid to leave their houses, which is what the situation would actually be.


Who posts the list on a website? A leader, perhaps? Where would that person get the information of the people who the terrorists should kill? Only a select few would have that information. In order to have an insurgency, you need leadership who can effectively direct actions so that they don't devolve into random actions that don't serve a greater purpose.

The government could easily post false lists of people to kill that would lead would-be terrorists into traps where they could be easily taken out. How would the insurgents defeat this strategy without central leadership and a means to communicate? The terrorists must rely on accurate information regarding who to kill, but I see no way of disseminating that information given the communications infrastructure of the US.

You realize that anyone caught accessing that webpage would be captured, tortured, and interrogated? It would be a huge risk to visit that webpage, what if the government found a workaround for the encryption software? Public computers would either block such websites or be monitored so the identity of the person viewing the page would be recorded. This plan is deeply flawed.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
If you'd like to belittle my knowledge about military weapons, I hope you feel better about yourself. The exchange reveals much more about your warped psychology than my ability to memorize useless facts. I happen to spend my time learning about other things, but that doesn't mean I can't have some favorite guns to learn about. But your demand that I learn about military technology before I can even make a comment is an controlling impulse, and you have no control over me.


I used the fact that you named a semi-obscure weapon but have no idea what it's actually used for to point out that you don't know what you're talking about and suggested that you might want to avoid that in the future so as to not appear ignorant; that's not control, that's advice. You also didn't seem to think the information was useless when you were attempting to use it to bolster your own credibility; I think I smell a bit of butthurt here...


I reference the A-10 as an aircraft that small arms fire would have little impact on, and went on to use the Avenger as a weapon that would do nicely to combat a group of terrorists congregated at an airstrip. You are wrong that I have no idea what it is used for. I know it is used in Afghanistan, and not against tanks even though it has that capability.

If you're really offering advice, then try doing it in a way so that others will appreciate it, not in condescending, d*ck-ish way. But I know you're not so naive to believe that that's what your real motivation was. Just don't pretend, it's embarrassing. If you really want to help people and make the world a better place, feel free to do so.

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
You seem to suggest that going on a mass murder spree to fight against a legal amendment to the constitution would garner support for the insurgents rather than the government? Please. The insurgents would be gutless terrorists, proud Americans would gladly see those traitors eviscerated.


So, do you actually work for DHS, or are you just hoping to some day?


Don't be silly. That kind of work seems very boring.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

02 Mar 2015, 9:39 pm

sly279 wrote:
imagine if tomorrow the government passes laws that make being black illegal, and order all blacks to be rounded up, deported or killed if they resist. would you see this as a legit government just cause they went about it in a semi legal way?

when the government does super wrong bad things legally they cease being legit in the eyes of the people. anything can be made legal, that doesn't make it right.

duch people much like the revolutionaries of the founders won't see them selfs as terrorist. the world and the england all called americans terrorists for their actions and if we'd lost it would have gone down in history as such.

if the possible event happens and the people you call terrorist manage to change the gov, they will be called heros and saviors of the republic. one mans terrorist is another mans hero. to what title wins goes to the victor.


Hmmm..., well I have very low expectations of government. Throughout human history, government has reliably done two things: collect taxes and build armies. The notion that it has some responsibility toward right and wrong is not really manifest in its history.

We ultimately have no rights, other than what the government gives us. And if the government decides to change what those rights are, it's legitimate, because people don't govern, governments do.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

02 Mar 2015, 9:44 pm

sly279 wrote:
also imagine this is pass, and the whole conservative/republican side disagrees.. say 49% disagree, while 51% passed it similar numbers to how obama was elected. now what you have isn't a terrorist but possible civil war. some states have already passed laws say they will not enforce any federal gun controls laws, so if the feds disband the 2nd amendment they won't support it and will arrest any federal agents caught trying to. now imagine they try the result is the state decides to leave. or worse you have atf/military fighting state troops, sheriffs, local police and national guard. texas has its own power gride, its own branch of air and army, i think they started stockpiling their own gold. they make a lot of the oil/gas. could see a possible states alling and forming around texas. guns/2nd amendment is very very important to lot of people and to some states. they won't go after it til they have slowly removed everything it protects til all that remains is the words on the paper and all guns have already been removed and destroyed. not going happen. just not worth the possible results and death tolls, no democrat politician wants that to be on their record.


Yes this kind of legislation could not happen now.

But generally speaking, Western nations tend to become more liberal over time. If incidents of mass shootings in the US increase in the next 20 or 30 years, and public perception of guns gradually changes, it could eventually happen.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Mar 2015, 10:48 pm

jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
imagine if tomorrow the government passes laws that make being black illegal, and order all blacks to be rounded up, deported or killed if they resist. would you see this as a legit government just cause they went about it in a semi legal way?

when the government does super wrong bad things legally they cease being legit in the eyes of the people. anything can be made legal, that doesn't make it right.

duch people much like the revolutionaries of the founders won't see them selfs as terrorist. the world and the england all called americans terrorists for their actions and if we'd lost it would have gone down in history as such.

if the possible event happens and the people you call terrorist manage to change the gov, they will be called heros and saviors of the republic. one mans terrorist is another mans hero. to what title wins goes to the victor.


Hmmm..., well I have very low expectations of government. Throughout human history, government has reliably done two things: collect taxes and build armies. The notion that it has some responsibility toward right and wrong is not really manifest in its history.

We ultimately have no rights, other than what the government gives us. And if the government decides to change what those rights are, it's legitimate, because people don't govern, governments do.


and this is why people like me and dox will never have common ground with people like you. our rights are not givin by the government it is only acknowledged and protected by the government.
they can not take what they didn't give. if you read the bill or rights it says that its just acknowledging rights that are basic human rights given by no man or government. the founding fathers didn't not think they were giving us these rights and future leaders could just take them away. perhaps this is why americans are so resistant to being told what to do compared to european nations who were use to being ruled by kings telling them what to do. this is why non gun owners went out in masses to buy guns when they were told they might not be allowed to have it. why they fought back when people try to tell them they can't have big soda drinks . they won't be happy when the government says you have no more rights you dirty peasants you are are beneath us now shut up and do what we say. they will resist cause they view freedom and the right of their kids to be free and do as they wish far far far greater then thier house, income, or even losing their life.

lots of those "militian terrorist" as you think they will be called, are cops and military. they will walk off the job. also currently they take guns with 9 people in california. imagine if at one house they lose 4 cops, kill 2 guys and 4 kids. times that by millions of houses. do you think they going want to go to the next house after loosing 4 guys and killing 4 babies? killing anyone can be tough on cop. I don't imagine many of the truly good ones could come back from that. mean while while they going door to door whos protecting their families? no many will just walk off and go home to be with their families, a bunch will join the resistance, and the remaining ar the cops who shoot unarmed people while they are handcuffed, people who have no value of human life and see being a cop as a job that pays money and lets them shoot people. truly their job is already dangerous without having to go to otherwise lawful peoples home for a armed shoot out that may last hours and lead to the deaf of plenty of people on both sides.

these so called terrorist, are teachers, pastors, cops, firemen, doctors, paramedics, cooks, etc. what will people think when they hear their ^ insert above, was swatted and killed? wonder if they'll hat the cops? i mean look what happens in cop on civilian shooting now. it be way more backlash. cops just want to go home at the end of the day, and this s**t would mean 80% likelihood they won't for crap pay and small pensions. most just won't do it.

people like you seem to view cops and military as soulless robots that just do what ever they are told to. they are people with emotions, likes, and families. probably half or more cops in the nation support gun rights. 1/4 probably are the very people you'd call terrorist. now the DHS is another thing, but it'll take time to get the DHS to 10million strong and armed and people are already watching them.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Mar 2015, 10:52 pm

jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
also imagine this is pass, and the whole conservative/republican side disagrees.. say 49% disagree, while 51% passed it similar numbers to how obama was elected. now what you have isn't a terrorist but possible civil war. some states have already passed laws say they will not enforce any federal gun controls laws, so if the feds disband the 2nd amendment they won't support it and will arrest any federal agents caught trying to. now imagine they try the result is the state decides to leave. or worse you have atf/military fighting state troops, sheriffs, local police and national guard. texas has its own power gride, its own branch of air and army, i think they started stockpiling their own gold. they make a lot of the oil/gas. could see a possible states alling and forming around texas. guns/2nd amendment is very very important to lot of people and to some states. they won't go after it til they have slowly removed everything it protects til all that remains is the words on the paper and all guns have already been removed and destroyed. not going happen. just not worth the possible results and death tolls, no democrat politician wants that to be on their record.


Yes this kind of legislation could not happen now.

But generally speaking, Western nations tend to become more liberal over time. If incidents of mass shootings in the US increase in the next 20 or 30 years, and public perception of guns gradually changes, it could eventually happen.

correction european nations tend to become more liberal over time. but american is made up of all the pro gun wild, not wanted, people that europe kicked out :P

every mass shooting and attempt at a ban just makes more pro gun people maybe if they didn't try to ban guns each time and mass shootings happen way way more often, even still the nation is split on guns. it'll take more then 30 years to dissolve that.

for someone who isn't anti gun you talk the talk and seem to be quite focused on removing all guns. most people who aren't anti and aren't pro guns don't talk about them at all. they too busy focused on their interests.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

03 Mar 2015, 10:54 am

sly279 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
imagine if tomorrow the government passes laws that make being black illegal, and order all blacks to be rounded up, deported or killed if they resist. would you see this as a legit government just cause they went about it in a semi legal way?

when the government does super wrong bad things legally they cease being legit in the eyes of the people. anything can be made legal, that doesn't make it right.

duch people much like the revolutionaries of the founders won't see them selfs as terrorist. the world and the england all called americans terrorists for their actions and if we'd lost it would have gone down in history as such.

if the possible event happens and the people you call terrorist manage to change the gov, they will be called heros and saviors of the republic. one mans terrorist is another mans hero. to what title wins goes to the victor.


Hmmm..., well I have very low expectations of government. Throughout human history, government has reliably done two things: collect taxes and build armies. The notion that it has some responsibility toward right and wrong is not really manifest in its history.

We ultimately have no rights, other than what the government gives us. And if the government decides to change what those rights are, it's legitimate, because people don't govern, governments do.


and this is why people like me and dox will never have common ground with people like you. our rights are not givin by the government it is only acknowledged and protected by the government.
they can not take what they didn't give. if you read the bill or rights it says that its just acknowledging rights that are basic human rights given by no man or government. the founding fathers didn't not think they were giving us these rights and future leaders could just take them away. perhaps this is why americans are so resistant to being told what to do compared to european nations who were use to being ruled by kings telling them what to do. this is why non gun owners went out in masses to buy guns when they were told they might not be allowed to have it. why they fought back when people try to tell them they can't have big soda drinks . they won't be happy when the government says you have no more rights you dirty peasants you are are beneath us now shut up and do what we say. they will resist cause they view freedom and the right of their kids to be free and do as they wish far far far greater then thier house, income, or even losing their life.

lots of those "militian terrorist" as you think they will be called, are cops and military. they will walk off the job. also currently they take guns with 9 people in california. imagine if at one house they lose 4 cops, kill 2 guys and 4 kids. times that by millions of houses. do you think they going want to go to the next house after loosing 4 guys and killing 4 babies? killing anyone can be tough on cop. I don't imagine many of the truly good ones could come back from that. mean while while they going door to door whos protecting their families? no many will just walk off and go home to be with their families, a bunch will join the resistance, and the remaining ar the cops who shoot unarmed people while they are handcuffed, people who have no value of human life and see being a cop as a job that pays money and lets them shoot people. truly their job is already dangerous without having to go to otherwise lawful peoples home for a armed shoot out that may last hours and lead to the deaf of plenty of people on both sides.

these so called terrorist, are teachers, pastors, cops, firemen, doctors, paramedics, cooks, etc. what will people think when they hear their ^ insert above, was swatted and killed? wonder if they'll hat the cops? i mean look what happens in cop on civilian shooting now. it be way more backlash. cops just want to go home at the end of the day, and this s**t would mean 80% likelihood they won't for crap pay and small pensions. most just won't do it.

people like you seem to view cops and military as soulless robots that just do what ever they are told to. they are people with emotions, likes, and families. probably half or more cops in the nation support gun rights. 1/4 probably are the very people you'd call terrorist. now the DHS is another thing, but it'll take time to get the DHS to 10million strong and armed and people are already watching them.


The bill of rights is just a piece of paper. Human rights are a myth.

Yes, I don't think that the police would be able to go into people's home and take their guns. It's more likely that legislation would offer a reward for turning in guns, and anyone caught using or possessing a gun after a grace period would be fined/imprisoned. People who are registered with guns would maybe face steep fines if they do not turn in their gun after a certain amount of time, but maybe that is not necessary. But I agree it would be a bad idea to actually attempt to physically collect guns.

But if pro gun people start murdering innocent cops and government officials to make a political statement, I have a hard time believing there would be much sympathy for them. Cops don't treat cop killers very kindly.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

03 Mar 2015, 11:12 am

sly279 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
also imagine this is pass, and the whole conservative/republican side disagrees.. say 49% disagree, while 51% passed it similar numbers to how obama was elected. now what you have isn't a terrorist but possible civil war. some states have already passed laws say they will not enforce any federal gun controls laws, so if the feds disband the 2nd amendment they won't support it and will arrest any federal agents caught trying to. now imagine they try the result is the state decides to leave. or worse you have atf/military fighting state troops, sheriffs, local police and national guard. texas has its own power gride, its own branch of air and army, i think they started stockpiling their own gold. they make a lot of the oil/gas. could see a possible states alling and forming around texas. guns/2nd amendment is very very important to lot of people and to some states. they won't go after it til they have slowly removed everything it protects til all that remains is the words on the paper and all guns have already been removed and destroyed. not going happen. just not worth the possible results and death tolls, no democrat politician wants that to be on their record.


Yes this kind of legislation could not happen now.

But generally speaking, Western nations tend to become more liberal over time. If incidents of mass shootings in the US increase in the next 20 or 30 years, and public perception of guns gradually changes, it could eventually happen.

correction european nations tend to become more liberal over time. but american is made up of all the pro gun wild, not wanted, people that europe kicked out :P

every mass shooting and attempt at a ban just makes more pro gun people maybe if they didn't try to ban guns each time and mass shootings happen way way more often, even still the nation is split on guns. it'll take more then 30 years to dissolve that.

for someone who isn't anti gun you talk the talk and seem to be quite focused on removing all guns. most people who aren't anti and aren't pro guns don't talk about them at all. they too busy focused on their interests.


Well, I believe the US is much more liberal now than it was 60 years ago. There are ebbs and flows but we removed institutional discrimination regarding race, gender, and disability, we have universal health care, services for poor people keep expanding, and inevitably gay marriage and and pot will be legal. The gun issue is moving more slowly but each successive generation is more liberal than the next.

Maybe 30 years is an underestimation of how long it will take. But I do think it is inevitable.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

03 Mar 2015, 11:27 am

jwfess wrote:
The bill of rights is just a piece of paper. Human rights are a myth.

Yes, I don't think that the police would be able to go into people's home and take their guns. It's more likely that legislation would offer a reward for turning in guns, and anyone caught using or possessing a gun after a grace period would be fined/imprisoned. People who are registered with guns would maybe face steep fines if they do not turn in their gun after a certain amount of time, but maybe that is not necessary. But I agree it would be a bad idea to actually attempt to physically collect guns.

But if pro gun people start murdering innocent cops and government officials to make a political statement, I have a hard time believing there would be much sympathy for them. Cops don't treat cop killers very kindly.

What about those individuals in military and law enforcement who would refuse to violate the constitutional rights of citizens who own and possess firearms (Second Amendment), keep them in their homes or on their persons (Fourth Amendment), expect to be treated fairly (Fifth Amendment), expect to have the ability to have their firearms returned to them immediately after they are determined to be innocent of any crime (Sixth Amendment) unless they are unconstitutionally imprisoned for such ownership and possession (Eighth Amendment), if necessary, sue at least for compensation of the value of their firearms (Seventh Amendment), and failing all that, claim that their rights to own and possess firearms are retained to the people (Ninth Amendment) or reserved to the states (Tenth Amendment)?

In other words, it is invalid to change the terms of a legal agreement without the consent of all parties to the agreement. The Constitution for the United States of America, and its Bill of Rights, can't be ignored by one self-serving party to allow that party to violate it. In other words, it is a covenant. It is locked in. It can't be ignored just because someone says it can.

I have no doubts that some will ignore this truism. They do already. And, we (including majorities in the military and law enforcement, according to most polls) surround them.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)