It is raining, my bike not running, so lets start a a topic.

If ever someone or some people manage to dissolve the constitution what will you do?

Civilians what would  you do
Revolt?
Move to another country?

Military what would you do follow the new regime because it is you job or hold on to the old values?



notice how he kinda choke up to answering  the second question.

That is one dire situation. If the constitution is dissolved it probably means one of a few things:

1) There has been a military takeover of the United States.
2) There has been an overthrow of the US government by some faction within it, probably with the support of the military
or
3) In spite of the military's best efforts the United States has been conquered by some other country that is now enforcing its own law.

Which one it is has a huge affect of what civilians and military personnel might do. Also what the character of the new regime is, what laws the constitution is replaced with.

Nice little video. Hard questions. Marines follow orders. Marines can refuse to follow an illegal order. Hopefully he is right that it isn't likely to happen... but if it does it will most likely be a state of Marshall Law... in which case disarming the public might not be quite so obviously illegal.

That is one dire situation. If the constitution is dissolved it probably means one of a few things:

1) There has been a military takeover of the United States.
2) There has been an overthrow of the US government by some faction within it, probably with the support of the military
or
3) In spite of the military's best efforts the United States has been conquered by some other country that is now enforcing its own law.

Which one it is has a huge affect of what civilians and military personnel might do. Also what the character of the new regime is, what laws the constitution is replaced with.

Nice little video. Hard questions. Marines follow orders. Marines can refuse to follow an illegal order. Hopefully he is right that it isn't likely to happen... but if it does it will most likely be a state of Marshall Law... in which case disarming the public might not be quite so obviously illegal.

1. Aint what the middle east is going through right now?
2. Voting scandals or well written and coersive bill that confuses the people when it got passed
3. Im still having a hard time about another country invading USA maybe nuking the mass majority b4 moving in.

I don't think I would like to move to any other country. This is the best country in the world that I have seen, and I cannot think of any better.
I would stay and fight. As I hope all true Americans would.

I don't think I would like to move to any other country. This is the best country in the world that I have seen, and I cannot think of any better.
I would stay and fight. As I hope all true Americans would.

Where's that like button again.

If it were to ever come to reality who would we fight?
The national guards? I would hate to because I know too many of themas friends and co workers

Protest would be the 1st thing until the new Gov starts treating us like how Gaddhafi treats his civilians.

Maybe it is a good time for the Native Hawaiians to declare Hawaii a sovereign state, then again that itself have complications.

If it were to ever come to reality who would we fight?
The national guards? I would hate to because I know too many of themas friends and co workers

Protest would be the 1st thing until the new Gov starts treating us like how Gaddhafi treats his civilians.

Maybe it is a good time for the Native Hawaiians to declare Hawaii a sovereign state, then again that itself have complications.

I think it would be the US revaluation mix with a civil war part II. I think there is a lot of military man and women that wouldn't go against US citizens.

Not really gun related. Moving to OT

The President already has the right to suspend the Constitution in times of National Emergencies.

He also has the right to relocate you to wherever necessary, to seize industry, agriculture, and transportation.

The term "National Emergency" is not well-defined, but boils down to a decision to be made by government officials of one kind or another.

This, largely through the power of "Executive Orders," among other things.

One of Clinton's aides supposedly said something like, "Executive Orders (EOs) are great.  You write an EO and stick it in the Federal Register, and if nobody objects, it automatically becomes law."

Dogpile or Google "scary executive orders" and browse through the hits.

Terry, 230RN

REF (Dogpile is an alternative search engine which I prefer to Google):

http://www.dogpile.com/

The question shouldn't be what would you do, it's what ARE you going to do?

H.R. 347 isn't the "dirty hippy get off my lawn" bill. It's "thanks to the hippies who couldn't get their s#it together we can now come after your guns and there's nothing you can do about it."

And if you do chose plan B then Eric Holder has some 'due process' ready and waiting.

H.R. 347 isn't the "dirty hippy get off my lawn" bill. It's "thanks to the hippies who couldn't get their s#it together we can now come after your guns and there's nothing you can do about it."

What does H.R. 347 have to do with guns? I thought it pretty much extended existing gathering prohibition law to include several more places in D.C. and made that law easier to enforce. As far as I could tell it only affects those areas. Doesn't have any affect even on the "dirty hippies" unless a protected official happens to wander through their camp or they decide to set up shop on the grounds of a protected federal building. Or they are protesting outside your home and DHS declares your grandma's birthday party to be a "special protected event'.... which they apparently can.

The 1971 law is spooky enough in regards to the right to gather and the recent extension of it is telling. Its pretty much "You have this unalienable right... accept when we decide you don't" But what does it have to do with guns? Am I missing something?

clshade asked,

What does H.R. 347 have to do with guns?

'Cause if they can outlaw any aspect of free speech and make it stick, they can outlaw anything --including guns.  One thing that bothers me about it is that it is, at root, a mere knee-jerk hysterical reaction to one particular problem which affects too much else.

Time would have solved the problem sans any new legislation.

I heard a lot of "Oh, but we have the Second Amendment to protect us" when GCA '68 was being debated, and that, too, was a hysterical reaction to a succession of very prominent negative incidents.  But they made it stick, and it's with us today.

Once again, I advocate for narrow time limits on any law passed anywhere.  Like maybe 5 years.  In the case of HR 347, it should be ten minutes.

Terry, 230RN

Right. 347 isn't a direct attack - it is one of a legion of indirect attacks on the integrity of the constitution. Which, I certainly agree, is looking more like a nostalgic wall hanging than a currently referenced legal document with each passing day.

That government governs best which governs least really should be a national motto regardless of left/right leanings. This shit is insane.

Ten years in prison for being at a protest with a 'weapon'. Like what? A kubaton? Swiss army knife? Fist full of keys?

When the gun grabbers go nuts, most likely after the next election, HR 347 makes it so there is no way to speak out against them.

I would rather die defending my freedom than live without it,,, would definitely not just sit at home waiting for the police to come and grab my guns and herd me off to some detention area or shelter, its off to the forests of Nahiku for me,,, or the area above kipahulu, there is game, plants that you can eat, water limited but covered access to the shore line, good cloud cover for fires to go undetected,, lots of cave and its so thick that someone might find you but they would have to really look hard for a long time with a lot of people,  I think they would have bigger fish to fry, but they could get lucky, 

A lot of tough talk in this thread so I'll just keep watching the news the see which one of y'allz is first to go rambo on the alphabets.

And now I step up on the soapbox:

The Constitution doesn't need to be dissolved or America invaded for it to be impotent, just look at all the different laws and orders in existence that circumvent it.

While everyone seems to have a hard on for red dawn scenarios, the real damage is done by the very people you entrust to protect the Constitution, including the politicians, the bureaucrats and lobbyists, the generals, the local elected servants, even the lowest police rookie or private.

The entire governmental system to its core requires the dissolution of the Constitution to gain and maintain power. Its nothing that can be prevented or stopped, so long as there is government, there will be its insatiable drive for power.

Deal with it.

/rant