The Truth about Republicans, Democrats, and 2A...?

Post Reply New Topic

"The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation. Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

Lincoln made first executive order as Caesar of the USA and made himself President Dictator and president of the Corporation ending the republic. We have been living under martial law ever since. FDR even passed law that all US Citizens are the enemy of the USA. The US is bankrupt and has been since 1933, The Receivers of the US Bankruptcy is the INT Bankers via the World Bank, UN, and IMF All US offices, officers and Departments are working under a "defacto" status only under the emergency war powers. This new form of gmt is known as a democracy(Instead of Republic) being and established communist/socialist order under the "The New Governor of America" - Congressional Record March 17th, 1993, Vol 33, Page H-1303. It is established fact that the US Fed Government has been disolved under the Emergency Banking Act March 9, 1933 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719 Declared by FDR Being Bankrupt and insolvent H.J.R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933- Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause - Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the US and the official capacities of all US Gov Offices Officers and Departments and is further evidence the the US Fed Gov only exist today in Name only. US being in Martial Law since 1933 and as far back as civil war Senate Report 93-549 (1973)"

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is true. But it all adds up. They tried to regulate guns in 1934.

The main purpose of the Democrat party is to stop global warming. But what actual measures have they actually done to stop global warming? There may be traitors in their ranks actually trying to increase global warming, for without global warming the Democrat party loses its primary purpose.

That being said, we need a third party that is pro-gun and anti-abortion but doesn't have the backwards baggage of the Republicans or Democrats. It's clear Republicans only care about "muh jobs" and could care less about global warming, the only way in which they care about global warming is if it affects "muh jobs" or something.

2nd amendment refers to the right to bear "arms". Definition of arms means especially firearms, but also could include knives. Anti-2As interpret the "right to bear arms" as the right to carry knives under 3.5" length, but I disagree (unbiasedly) with this interpretation. The constitution does not say "the right to bear only certain arms". The dictionary definition of arms refers specifically to arms as firearms primarily, and knives secondarily. And under 2A wording both would be considered arms, the right to thereof should not be infringed.

Here is a wall of text from Cornell about 2nd amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment That being said, this was a low effort posting so I didn't bother to read most of that wall of text.

"mass shootings" I would prefer if there were less mass shootings, but trading guns for the hope of less mass shootings doesn't seem like a fair trade. For instance, banning guns might reduce mass-shootings, but it would reduce people's ability to defend against other crimes, such as burglaries and assault. The chance of someone dying in a mass shooting is statistically very low, the odds of someone dying in a vehicle crash is much higher. Would I trade the freedom to drive for only being allowed to drive Ai powered cars? Probably not. While I think Ai powered cars might be safer, I don't think steering wheels should be banned, what if some evil corporation or hackers try to control the Ai powered cars. I would rather live in a fun society where people are allowed to have guns, than in a European overly-restrictive society where nobody has any rights. I would not trade my rights for an illusion of safety.

Imo banning guns is anti-female, anti-lgbt and anti-minority. Historically, blacks were regulated by gun-control as a means of white control. "But democrats have a more female ratio!" And some females seem to date dark-triad abusive boyfriends also. I've talked to cringey degenerates who told everyone they have a fetish of getting beaten by men, some of these degenerates were female. I haven't spoke to any them recently, but the point is you cannot automatically assume Democrats have the best policies. I personally wouldn't want to get beaten by my boyfriend once a week. I might let it slide once and then next time I'm shooting him between the eyes. I also don't want to get raped by random troglodytes, or robbed by burglars trying to enter my home, or cold blooded murderers. I see no logical reason how giving up guns would benefit me or most minorities. Gun bans only benefits people of privilege who are rich, live in gated communities and have advanced security systems. In poor cities it might take police an hour or more to arrive to a scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh6PoeyaT3w Did not watch the video but I am guessing the video is pro 2A.

Cops shooting black people is dystopian, but they also shoot white people too. In an ideal world cops would have better training and people would get a fair treatment. But that has nothing to do with gun rights whatsoever, since its unlikely a gun ban would affect cops in any way. I do not vote in favor of disempowering black people to force them to give up their guns in the hopes that they appear more docile in the eyes of cops. Black on black violence is a bigger threat than cops, but I also do not echo the sentiment of Bloomberg who wants to ban black people's guns to keep them safe from other black people. Its the same with mass shootings, mass shootings are symptoms of a dystopia. You fix the underlying cause of the dystopia, you fix the underlying cause of black on black crime first instead of the symptom. If there was a magic button that magically stopped all mass shootings, it would still be a dystopia, there would still be lots of unhappy people but they just wouldn't be going around mass shooting.

If there was a magic button that could magically delete all guns in existence then the anti2As might have a strong argument. But crime rates in some gun-free cities actually increase. Crims will just buy guns illegally from the black market or build guns from metal or plastic. Then people will try to ban all metal and plastic and wood and knives and whatever else, until there is zero freedom or fun in society and there is no reason to live in the first place, defeating the point of saving lives. That being said, I wouldn't push that button, I'm just saying if there was a button they'd have a strong argument. I am somewhat anti-war, but at the same time guns, war and death is a natural part of nature and humans are overpopulated. Humans want to live in a bubble where all species on earth are subjugated by humans and have no rights, whereas humans are above all the laws of nature. 70% of the animals have gone extinct this past century because of human activity, and the rest (96%) are domesticated. I don't want to be domesticated by these arrogant humans. I want my guns. Rules for the and not for me: I don't believe politicians have the right to ban guns, since politicians hire armed security to protect themselves. That's like saying my life don't matter and only politicians lives matter, and nobody else matters. Weapons were invented to protect the weak from the physically strong. I want my right to protect myself from rapists and thugs. Weapons are the great equalizer. You want equality? It starts with weapons. Weapons are what makes us human.

"but people use guns to hunt" Its sad and I don't approve of some of the killings. But its better than the alternative. Guns result in humane kills usually. The alternative is people shooting animals with underpowered bb guns that don't have enough joules. And I want everyone on the planet to agree to be vegetarian before they get on their moral high horse about guns. Shooting animals with guns is far more ethical than factory farming.

"totalitarianism" I am in favor of some forms of totalitarianism, such as stricter global warming policies and a tax credit for vegetarians. But America should remain land of the free. Ideally, there could be experimental totalitarian states in other continents and countries, to see what societies are actually the most optimal structure of society. But America should be a safe haven, a plaza of freedom for people do go back to other societies and ideologies don't end up working out.

 

The truth about the 2A is that for most of Americas history it was not seen as a guarantee of individual ownership of guns. It says it right there in the 2A that its for militias and that militias were necessary for states

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people at that time used "people" to refer to government. They literally said "the states rights to form a militia shall not be infringed." In the constitution, when they were talking about the rights of an individual, they often specifically stated citizen or person, not "people." People was often interchangeable with a government in their way of talking. As in, "We the people..." its not referring to literally every person, they are talking about the government of the US.

It was in the last 20 years that right wing Supreme courts somehow interpreted this to mean not only do you have an individual right to own guns, but that handguns in particular are sacrosanct. Its because the right wingers on the Supreme court are crackpots and thats why they were picked. They more or less ignored the "well regulated part" as well. Its cherry picking, which is what crackpots do.

If you read up on it, throughout the history of the US localities were able to outright seize guns from people however they saw fit, and the court system saw no issue with that. It was when gun manufacturing became a powerful industry that it aligned itself with some sort of "freedumb" ideology were able to install their own crackpot Supreme Court Justices.

This is why we have people shooting Subway workers for putting too much mayo on a sandwhich, and a shocking increase in road rage murders. I'd respect gun rights people more if they just admitted that innocents being killed by hotheads was something they were willing to accept. Instead they keep clinging to this, "more people need guns!" mindset. That will result in more hotheads with guns shooting people who cut them off.

Where did you copy and paste this from, exactly?

I'm not a lawyer either, but to me the above sounds like blatherings of the so-called "sovereign citizen" movement and other related pseudolaw movements.

More info about this phenomenon here.

Everyone, don't fall for this nonsense, please. If you follow the "legal" advice given by people who believe in this stuff, you'll only get yourself into needless legal trouble.

There we go again with change of language in order to fit our narrative. Postmodernist dishonesty at it's finest. You will have to prove that the word people ment the government but you can't, I'll predict that for you.

Well, Lincoln and FDR were potential dictators. Thank God they both died before they could achieve that.

*Yes Lincoln did good to abolish slavery.

I would provide links, but you won't read them. I could provide you Supreme Court decisions, but again you won't care. I could provide you a vox.com article that contains all those links, but you will probably just claim thats "MSM bias" or something like that. So I won't waste my time. Instead you will just talk like a Fox News anchor. That only works on fellow right wingers.

You actually have to provide me with supreme court decisions prior to about 20 years ago that prove me wrong. But you can't do that because there are none.

Here's a former Supreme Court chief justice talking about "Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun"

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... ntrol-p-99

Are you telling me you are more qualified than a Supreme Court justice? Because you actually would be on this current court, just not the ones before it became like it is today.

I am not anti-dictatorship, I am just anti-dictatorship in America. I believe America needs to remain a "safe zone" or "safe haven" for freedom in case other civilizations fail. So elsewhere people could experiment with different utopias. While I view Europe and Australia as already failed civilizations and a dystopia so I think we need a new civilization there. For instance, lets say someone wanted to create an Ai utopia with a bunch of Ai politicians, but it fails, then they need to start over.

I am not a lawyer and I've heard the sovereign citizen thing debunked numerous times. That being said, my gut tells me the original quote is valid, I do think there is a corporation of united states and this is different from the united states of america. I think the sovereign citizen thing is debunked in the since that, sovereign citizens think they can have total anarchy and there are zero rules, which I just do not believe is the case. If the corporation of america thing is true, then citizens would still have to follow the rules of the original Republic of America. Also I've heard that if someone is born after a certain date (depends on what state) then they are owned by the corporation of america instead of the united states of america, and they would not be part of the republic.

The gun bans started in 1934 right after 1933: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VWcGwPJQfc

OPs "low effort" wall of text is 300 words longer than the Cornell Law "wall of text" that they cited but didn't read. That amused me greatly.

The Cornell Law post that OP didn't read (but probably should have) outlines several instances under which the federal and state government can in fact regulate or even "ban" weapons.

There are some very confused ideas being presented here.

Those claims are all consistent with claims made by the sovereign citizen movement. Even if you don't share the conclusions held by the most extreme SCs, it doesn't mean that you haven't absorbed the premises they use to reach their conclusions.

One of the things about the SCM is that it's misunderstandings and pseudolegal claims stacked layer upon layer. Different people and groups have added to a growing body of (false) ideas that grow from these different claims and generally speaking, none of them believe all of it but one doesn't need to believe the wackiest of the ideas in order to be immersed in some of their ideas.

Lincoln and Roosevelt were not potential dictators, nor did either try to achieve that sort of power. Lincoln had to take hold of the reigns of power in order to save the country from being ripped in half, while Roosevelt saved America from being pulled either to the extreme left or right during the Great Depression, while he fought a war against international fascism.

Gun banners frequently use the "militia" argument of the 2nd amendment. But since when do gun banners ever provide exceptions for militia members in any of these gun bans and restrictions? Since when have gun banners ever said "ban full autos and shotguns for everyone, except militia they can keep those." And they conveniently ignore how the original militia was every adult human male in America, which would mean that when they wrote the Constitution, every male American citizen was supposed to have guns.



Gun banners primary objective is to ban guns.

That being said, not all gun banners are the same, so you can't always use the same arguments when encountering a gun banner. You have to first know what category of gun banner they actually are first.
Imo, there are three types of gun banners.
1. The fantasists: These types want to ban all guns in the hope that they will achieve world peace and a world free of crime. This will not happen due to several reasons, some are genetics, upbringing, and economics. They would also have to ban all metal, wood, plastic and all 3d printers, they would also try to ban all math, science and physics books because somebody could figure out how to make a weapon from it. Hypothetically, if there was some way to improve genetics, upbringing and economics to the point that there was no crime, then a gun ban wouldn't be needed in the first place, since there was no crime.
2. The historic left: These people say that the old militia is not the same as today, therefore the Constitution is obsolete, and because there was gun regulation in the 1800s we must all regulate guns. These types tend to ignore that if the Constitution is obsolete, there are still valid reasons to have guns, and the Constitution never said to not have guns. The other problem is that these people seem to ignore the possibility of a slippery slope caused by Groups 1 and 3, and assume with confidence that "just a little regulation" won't have long term consequences, such as a future with America ending up as a European draconian state where they aren't even allowed to carry knives or have self defense. And these types seem to ignore how the gun bans starting in 1934 were extremely sus, and how all modern gun bans seem to be of the same structure.
3. The traitors and saboteurs: These are Russian or Chinese agents who want to ban guns to soften America up for Chinese occupation. Their influence has strongly affected California and made California the weakest state in America (when it should be the state that is the most heavily armed.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign ... n_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_prote ... ted_States

Just going to leave those here for anyone who isn't familiar. The SCM is an offshoot of earlier movements within the radical right, the redemption or acceptance for value (A4V) movement is related. Their pseudolegal claims consistently fail in court, it's only a matter of if they're merely wrong, or not even wrong.

While the SCM was historically tied to white supremacist/white nationalist groups, the ideology has spread much wider than that, including to black separatist groups like Moorish Science Temple.

Typically, the gurus within these movements are nothing more than con artists who are taking advantage of people who pay for their insight and guidance (whether through books, seminars, etc). That said, lots of people within those movements never pay for guidance and only seek out disinformation that is freely available. Not everyone within the movement is being financially scammed even if they're all being mislead.

Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).

Where do you get this stuff?