After the north conquered the south, the spoils of war goes to the victor, and the amendment in the Constitution they are illegally holding against Donald Trump is an example of legal restrictions placed on undesirable politicians. Similar to Texas, as an example, as a Conquered nation no longer has the right to leave the union if it votes to do so.
Likewise the flag of the United States was changed to reflect this “Federal supreme status” by placing a gold fringe around federal USA flags, even though it’s not part as our nations recognized colors. It means “Admiralty Law”.

There is a misconception that the Civil War was to “end slavery”… To the contrary, it turned all citizens into slaves, and there by the ability to tax and regulate us directly. (every citizen of this country is / was “sovereign” and bows to no one, every contribution or agreement by a citizen for the betterment of the community was freely given, or not)

Holding federal office means playing by their Federal rules. The states are regulated by federal jurisdiction to prevent “States rights” (seen as insurrection) which is no longer legal under the state of emergency in which all 50 states must bow before Washington DC. (The illusion of a republic where Rights and freedoms are allowed “with conditions” decided by of our kind benefactor, Uncle Sam.)

Many western Territory’s or states which were considered part of the “conquered slave states” wilderness territory had all open lands confiscated and managed by a federal BLM. Which still refuses to this day to give any land back to the states who should be running and governing their own land to their own benefit. (Utah wanted to mine coal and uranium near Bears Ears, and uranium near Grand Canyon Arizona… But the federal government turned it into federal parks shutting down all economic progress in the four corners area)

The current presidency, with “executive dictator actions”, bypassing Congress and the courts have made exceptions to the rule of law because ultimately ”they have the presumed right to do so” under emergency rule. All challenges to these actions have been ignored, all pretense of a republic (or a democracy) has been given up.
Words and phrases have lost their meaning, such as the “border is secure” when it obviously is not! or undermining civil society by “defunding the police” is so private army’s, can fill the void, working for semi public/private Stockholder corporations… such as tens of thousands of IRS agents outfitted in combat gear working for the private Federal Reserve… will now be the “new normal” in the collective formally known as the USA)

But “we the people” can only be pushed so far… when the federal government told us we no longer owned our own bodies (which ultimately is the only thing we do own) then it became apparent that the right to “life, liberty, and happiness” has been criminalized… they’ve gone to far and push back is for our very survival.

“that mangling of language the Progressives are so good at.”

They are good and practiced at it, but it is hollow.

And that level of dishonesty and self-delusion for their cause is what is so sad to me.

It is something that I do not respect with extreme prejudice.

markedup2
January 8, 2024 at 1:13 pm

…how many possible “uses” are there for a gun? I can think of three legitimate: Practice, Competition, Self-defense.
Ironically, you forgot “hunting.” :)

Alton
January 8, 2024 at 6:19 pm

At least fourteen states consider ARs in .223 Caliber to be to light a round thus illegal to hunt deer with, not powerful enough.
Trent states “AR style weapons”. And they can come in a lot of calibers. In fact, I finished my .50 Beowulf AR last night. (Now I need to win the lotto so I can buy ammo for it. Yikes, is it expensive!) (But, that info is always helpful when arguing with someone about “That’s such an incredibly powerful weapon!”)

Cotour
January 8, 2024 at 1:28 pm

non-factual inflammatory language: “illegals”
Because they espouse the non-sequitur, “No human is illegal” I’m guessing. Which means they can’t even parse the English language properly. It is one of the hardest parts of re-evangelizing people to the proper mindset – that mangling of language the Progressives are so good at.

Lastly, I do agree with Matt Walsh, though not in that language (at least initially). I’ll start with “I cannot, I will not recant.”

https://palmettostatearmory.com/blog/a-guide-to-ar-15-calibers.html

Also, where I’m at we harvest all manner of creatures, even some we don’t use- my friend often blats coyotes on his property with his decked out .22 AR rifle. Although I suspect that’s more about popping off rounds and looking good doing it than practicality. :)

They’ll learn what the word “resist” really means.

At least fourteen states consider ARs in .223 Caliber to be to light a round thus illegal to hunt deer with, not powerful enough.

AR style weapons make really great hunting guns. Many hunters in my state, and our neighboring Illinois, do this every year.

That failure to faithfully execute our laws could – and should – be used as an article of impeachment. The Executive branch is required to uphold all the constitutional laws that are in place, even if it dislikes or disagrees with them. The deliberate failure to do this is a willful violation of Joe Biden’s responsibilities.

I have conversations with some on the Left, and I asked one this question. And the response is very telling, pure Saul Alynski:

I ask after I sent them my SIGMA3 post the other day about illegal immigrants: https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/not-going-to-work-out-well

Q: “If you could please explain why the border has been left wide open, what is the purpose?”

And if you have read anything I have posted on the subject you understand, and they understand that I have a pretty well developed sense of what is what. But you must be able to clearly explain your position and why you hold it. If not you are a drone.

A: “I did not entertain your premise because it begins in non-factual inflammatory language: “illegals”, which leads me to believe that the rest cannot be in good faith. ”

My simple response? OK.

I really am close to this person. And I fully understand that they are not equipped to actually answer my question, I understand that.

But there is nothing there, and that is very sad to me. I do not push it, but I do receive communications here and there asking question about a broad range of things including politics and I always answer as best as I can. And if I cannot I say, I do not know. Or I will look into it and get back to you.

But what is offered when cornered is very concerning to me. That is what makes me nervous, and I do not get nervous.

Aside from being ridiculously multi-subject, I found these gems.

Any resident purchasing ammunition within
or outside the State of Illinois must provide the seller with a
copy of his or her valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card
or valid concealed carry license and either his or her
Illinois driver’s license or Illinois State Identification
Card prior to the shipment of the ammunition.

Much to my surprise, non-citizens are banned from getting this card (it’s far too fragmented to quote, here).

This is one of the criteria for the “red flag” law:

The unlawful and reckless use, display, or
brandishing of a firearm, ammunition, and firearm parts
that could be assembled to make an operable firearm

I can see a lawyer reading that as one must keep one’s spools of 3D printer plastic out of sight.

This seems more than a bit dubious:

The presence in an automobile other than a public
omnibus of any weapon, instrument or substance referred to in [much deleted]
is prima facie evidence that it is in the
possession of, and is being carried by, all persons occupying
such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or
substance is found

The list here is basically the feature set of my Christmas present to myself!

“Assault weapon” means any of the following

For example: (vi) a shroud attached to the barrel or that partially or completely encircles the barrel

all AR types, including the following:

The list makes it up to XLIII. Isn’t there some language in a Supreme Court decision about not banning things in “common use”? A non-exhaustive list of 43 manufacturers seems a bit much for something that is “not common”.

Way down on page 98:

shall possess such items only:

It’s all about “where”, not what you’re doing while there. The five point list is basically “private property” (assuming there are no publicly owned ranges).

I can’t find anything about “use” or “application”, but how many possible “uses” are there for a gun? I can think of three legitimate: Practice, Competition, Self-defense. And only one illegitimate: not-self-defense shooting of person. I suppose shooting the dying pet/farm-animal is another; legitimacy being in the eye of the beholder.

“”Always remember, the government and I do not care which party is in control of it has NEVER told you or anyone else the truth, not the real truth anyway. NEVER. And so, if “IT” is involved in some issue you must assume that there is something other ongoing related to power and control rather than the “truth” that “IT” proposes.”

You are going to have to read the entire thing and share it with a bewildered good friend or enemy………………”

ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE: https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/about-climate-change

NOT GOING TO WORK OUT WELL: https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/not-going-to-work-out-well

The government is supposed to operate by the consent of the governed and by the rule of CONSTITUTIONAL laws, but we have tragically fallen away from this paradigm into a form of tyranny.

Without push-back, the oppression will only worsen.