Psaki today: Gun control a 'priority'

[Tarmy]

[ScottsBad]

Discussions about whether law enforcement and the military "upholding their oath" usually miss the point. It is premised on... obeying the Constitution based on the way WE choose to interpret it. While I firmly believe that our interpretation has the historicity, common sense, logic, original intent, and everything else behind it, as I've noted previously, it's clear that the Left has a different or alternative view.

This isn't about the fine points of the law, the Leftists don't give a crap about the Constitution or the Law or what is protected.

You see, disarmament is just one step to their goal. They will pack the Courts, add more states to bend the Senate their way, create false flags, censor opposing voices, and use the corrupt press to brainwash the useful idiots.

Look what they are doing with COVID to manipulate people and the economy, while the ultra-rich get even richer. They want to destroy the middle class, because Trump proved the Middle Class have REAL power if lead properly. They fear a populist like Trump, that's why they manipulated the election.

They have already told us what they are gonna do. Including the re-education camps. Check yourself if you think this is preposterous, THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT TO OUR KIDS FOR YEARS. A freshman Congresswoman was on CNN talking about a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" for our Country, where we would "learn" about our racial injustice,

This is about forced changes, likely communism, or some sort of Business/Government oligarchy.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution will be swept aside, tyrannical radical one party rule will be instituted, if they get their way.

Again, disarming Americans and destroying the Constitution is their goal. There is no debate that will appeal to them. They have a plan and that is what they are going to do, period.

Wake up, and fight.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This isn't about the fine points of the law, the Leftists don't give a crap about the Constitution or the Law or what is protected.

You see, disarmament is just one step to their goal. They will pack the Courts, add more states to bend the Senate their way, create false flags, censor opposing voices, and use the corrupt press to brainwash the useful idiots.

Look what they are doing with COVID to manipulate people and the economy, while the ultra-rich get even richer. They want to destroy the middle class, because Trump proved the Middle Class have REAL power if lead properly. They fear a populist like Trump, that's why they manipulated the election.

They have already told us what they are gonna do. Including the re-education camps.

This is about forced changes, likely communism, or some sort of Business/Government oligarchy.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution will be swept aside, tyrannical radical one party rule will be instituted, if they get their way.

Again, disarming Americans and destroying the Constitution is their goal. There is no debate that will appeal to them. They have a plan and that is what they are going to do, period.

Wake up, and fight.

You are correct. But, I wasn't talking about "fine points of the law." I was talking about what the law (the Constitution) is understood to mean at its base or core. That's not a 'fine point.' That's a matter of what the military/law enforcement and, even to a degree, the Left feels they are striving for and/or enforcing; the latter being the specific point I was responding to... Discussions about whether law enforcement and the military "upholding their oath" usually miss the point.

When Hillary says they invaded "our" Capitol... when the Left talks about "insurrection"... when Biden or Hillary or Obama say they "support" the 2nd Amendment... You have to understand the premise or point of reference to which they are referring. In a basic sense, what they believe it means isn't what we believe it means and there is no 'absolute,' definitive definition to fall back on in that "we" are not unified in our beliefs and, to a lesser degree, "they" are not completely unified in their's. Unfortunately, that was, in theory, the role of the Supreme Court and they have, in essence, punted on their responsibility to create a benchmark.

The two benchmarks they laid out with Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) is that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that such an interpretation is incorporated to the States. The trouble is that Heller was decided by the barest of margins and, as has been demonstrated, is vulnerable to interpretation and not just 'nefarious' interpretation. That's not a 'fine point' of law. It's how our system is currently functioning and demonstrative of how far we've moved from what, historically, has been the supposed ideal.

That's one of the reasons you have to be careful in claiming that the Left 'fears' a populist President. The same holds true of those on the Right and, for the moment, ignoring the 'cheating' we suspect/know took place, is precisely what we are reacting to in that both Hillary and Biden won the 'popular vote.' At the moment, the Left has largely paid lip service to the idea of "populism" as it is defined...

Populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties.

However, so are you in your post by declaring that, if LED properly... meaning it's not so much about "common people," but about an 'elite' (be it individual, party, or group) which sets the agenda, even if that agenda is 'suggested' by the People, makes the decisions, prompts the course of action, et al. In a sense, it is the essence of a constitutional republic. The problem is it's also a two-edged sword. As the linked article on "populism" goes on to point out...

The term populism

The latter is what we saw the precursors of with Obama. It's something which Hillary intended to expand upon. It's what Biden has overtly referenced in respect to some policies; i.e., that Obama didn't go far enough.

Lacking that charismatic leader on this go 'round, what the Left did was attempt to villainize Trump as an example of the latter when, in many/most respects, he was an exemplar of the former; critical of the political system and attempting reforms in the interest of the average citizen. It's what we are talking about when we say that Democrats are projecting what they are actually doing on to the Right. In that sense, it's precisely what you are alluding to when you say that they've already told us what they intend to do by accusing Trump of planning to do it.

It's what I term "authoritarian imposition" and it isn't simply about politics or 'fine points of law.' It's not as 'simple' as destroying the Constitution and disarming the People as a step in doing so. It's about, as Obama said, fundamentally changing the nation; our System, our beliefs, our understanding of what things mean and how they should work. In a very real sense, it's why no amount of 'debate' or logical argument seems to 'appeal to them.'

We tend to get lost in the discussion of "the 2nd Amendment" or abortion or societal aesthetics; i.e., points of the overall 'plan' or 'blueprint.' We accuse "them" of being 'communists' or look for 'conspiracies' to affirm our suspicions and, we hope, lend a certain sense of legitimacy to how we posit they are motivated and pulling things off. While each may be true, in and of itself, we tend to focus on the specific and lose sight of the scale of what's happening.

In other words, we get lost looking at the trees and don't see the forest; even if the 'tree' is simply our 'conspiracy theory of the moment.' We endlessly debate whether THIS is how they are doing it and how we can stop THIS or whether law enforcement/the military will honor their oath or if the 2nd Amendment applies to hunting or whether we're on the verge of "Civil War" or whether this/that type of public protest is the most effective... ad infinitum. What we forget is that ALL of them are simply pieces of the puzzle and not the entirety of it; meaning we typically lose the context for the pieces and, as a result, we don't know how the pieces fit and don't see how the puzzle is coming together based on how they envision the final image.

From that perspective, we're both talking about the same thing. You're coming at it from the standpoint of the trees and I'm coming at it from the standpoint of the forest. If you don't see what "they" see as the final image and "how" they are putting the puzzle together, the trees lack context. Put another way, you have to understand what they are attempting to piece together to understand the significance of the trees and what you are declaring isn't quite accurate.

They DO care about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Law, et al. They have no intention of simply 'sweeping it aside.' What they are attempting to do is implement THEIR understanding/interpretation of all of the above to enable a society they deem to be the 'correct' one. Remember, even the Soviet Union had a Supreme Court, a press, a Constitution with Constitutional rights...

The Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy. In line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the government, the Constitution also granted social and economic rights not provided by constitutions in some capitalist countries. Among these were the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.

Unlike Western constitutions, the Soviet Constitution outlined limitations on political rights, whereas in democratic countries these limitations are usually left up to the legislative and/or judicial institutions...

While taken from Wikipedia, that last line is the key. Rather than viewing the Bill of Rights as limitations on Government, they viewed them as limitations on the rights of individuals and isn't that pretty much what Biden, Hillary, and the dissent in Heller claim as their understanding of the 2nd Amendment? Isn't that pretty much the line of thought being touted as behind the 'censorship' we see? In short, isn't that the very purpose of the 're-education' camps you suggest, to alter one's 'understanding' of their individual rights, the purpose and authority of government, the very beliefs one holds?

Again, it's not necessarily about a "Communist plot;" although such could be a part of it and lessons are being utilized from their failures. (Remember, if you've read Marx, the U.S. fit his 'model' far better than either Russia or China in terms of how they attempted to execute it.) Such interpretations and understandings are common within authoritarian regimes. Manipulating things, such as not letting "an emergency go to waste," is simply a tactic which is rationalized/justified by the precept of: "Whatever it takes."

In that sense, when you say it's not about the fine points of law, bear in mind that is one of the tactics being used against us; i.e., fine points and interpretations of the law. Or, as what I refer to as "the plan/blueprint" states it vis a vis the 45 Goals of Communism...

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights...

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."...

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]...

Right on down the list... literally.

As I said in another thread the other day, never underestimate the lengths of nefariousness a dedicated/obsessed enemy of freedoms/liberties will go to in the accrual and use of power. The key, so far as I'm concerned, is in understanding what they intend rather than focusing on the individual tactics; particularly, as was noted in numerous threads during the Parkland episode, the anti-civil rights forces were, literally, 'attacking' on multiple fronts, throwing virtually 'everything' against the wall, then taking whatever seemed to 'stick' and exploiting it. Such was a 'warning' of where we were headed and what was going on. But, the crucial element of such a 'key' is in accurately evaluating their intended goal; not simply throwing epithets, misstating their beliefs/goals, and not relying on cries of "Molon Labe" lest such be used against you as a 'misrepresentation' itself or as 'evidence' of an authoritarian populism. For example, from The Trace...

...Writing last year in Esquire

[Nvberinger]

I think the dems are just waiting for another mass shooter event so they can ram their proposed laws through with no debate.

That's a weekly event in Chicago. Can also be found in LA with the many gangs.

[Dirtlaw]

And just next door ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-gun-laws-b1803154.html

[Barang]

just remember beto and what biden said about appointing him as his gun czar. these people are dictators and freedom is their enemy!

[joepamjohn]

I think the dems are just waiting for another mass shooter event so they can ram their proposed laws through with no debate.

[joepamjohn]

I think the dems are just waiting for another mass shooter event so they can ram their proposed laws through with no debate.

[Dirtlaw]

How Biden could tighten gun control without Congress

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-could-biden-tighten-gun-control-without-congress-approval

[GraveTPO]

now is the hour of testing for law enforcement and the military. will they uphold their oaths, or will they commit treason with the other conspirators

I'm betting on: "Just following orders..."

[middleofnowhere]

I'm betting on: "Just following orders..."

Unfortunately you are correct.

[kurac]

For the dems its all about politics. O'Biden will sign anything they put in front of him, its his last gig so he doesn't care as long as he or his son doesn't end up in jail. A lot of long time swampers remember losing the house the last time they pushed a gun ban through and slick Willy got impeached. So they are waiting for a national tragedy so they can push something through in a hurry with no time for debate, but only if he has "bipartisan" support so that way it doesn't get pinned on them in the midterm elections. Or maybe they don't worry about that because in a lot of states they managed to get into positions where they are the ones counting the votes.

[Barang]

^^^ it's not politics but more like imposing their will on people. abusing their power, controlling the people, they know better than you that is why they tell you what you can and cannot do/have/say/read/own.

[Redeyedrider]

Make sure you donate whatever you can to gun rights organizations. CRPA, FPC, GOA, etc. Even $10 helps, because it adds up fast.

Let it burn down so we can get it over with already.