but what do you do when you are not granted freedom?

Apparently you want to keep steamrolled.

Naw, bitch. I was born this way.

Whoever owns this mult must be 100 years old.

Whoever owns this mult must be 100 years old.

1: They were written by key framers though and framers intent becomes important in interpretation. Remember, Madison authored the Bill of Rights, which is where the 2nd Amendment falls upon. Ditto for other rights granted by the 1st 10 Amendments

2: They only state how states can enter the union. Given their own separation from Britain and the fact they don't preclude states from leaving, it is reasonable to presume they would honor self determination. Especially when you look at the philosophies of the framers. If an amendment is needed to create a structure, then I am 100% behind that amendment.

3: You don't ask a tyrant permission for freedom. That never goes over well or accomplishes anything. You can try and make that your 1st step, but what do you do when you are not granted freedom?

All technology is 3D.

It is still popular

So I guess you believe that one day a man will be able to legally marry a sheep in the USA? That's the slope we are on for marital rights...

Your argument/analogy is for the weak minded. It's a lot easier to say that because we droned on US citizen who was fighting our country in a foreign country that the logical conclusion is the Pres can shoot me in the head for fun. It's a weak minded argument. The more difficult argument is, was the original action just, are there considerations that would make it more or less just, if the citizenry deems it unjust what are there mechanisms to resist, what redress do they have individually or through their elected officials, is it just during war, is it just during peace, what level of standard should be applied to such an action if it is deemed just, should it be just in any situation, what are the international consequences of such action, what safeguards should be made surrounding the action if deemed just, etc.

Keep believing you are a deep thinker though...

Is it really? I had to Google it.

It is still popular

As for the extrajudicial killings, remember, the Executive Branch could not when pressed declare that such killings would be outlawed on US soil. That lone is alarming. In 2013, Eric Holder (then the AG) declared such a killing would be legal. I'd hardly say I'm inventing a false possible scenario here.

I wonder if he "looses his shit" if the clerk ever asks for his phone/email at the store?

You don't like the response from the Executive Branch, exercise your right to representative democracy and vote in someone who will give you a satisfactory response.

Either that or start shooting people...

AM I BEING DETAINED

Ogie is a great American.

Glad he's on our side, and he brings a lot to the table on these forums. OnePost is no slouch either.

I'm not one to go to violence. I am a believer in the NAP and do believe working within the system to change it is the 1st and best option. However, I also believe one should retain the tools necessary if forced to take action to preserve their liberty. Our founders certainly believed in that ideal.

Ogie is a great American.

I would say the 9th and 10th Amendment provide a basis where states could leave the union or people could vote to leave the union.

9th- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


There are plenty of things throughout history where the Constitution does not have explicit guidance.

The constitution itself describes the formation and working of the government, the first 10 amendments talk about rights between the state and its citizens. The authors of the federalist papers were not the author of the constitution, sorry to break it to you.

Again, if the concept of self determination was SOOOOOO important to the framers as you keep protesting, don't you think they would have added maybe one sentence in the constitution stating such? Your argument is so at odds with itself that it is staggering. Essentially you are saying that the framers thought self determination was so important that they would assume people would presume that a state could leave the union at will, and they didn't address it in a document that explicitly spells out how the government should work? They carved slaves up into 3/5ths of a person but forgot to add the sentence about a state can leave the union freely upon a vote of its citizens?

For every repulsion against tyranny in this country accomplished solely by use of the second amendment, there are 100 examples where people had the same success using a combination of the first, 4th, 6th, 14th. Again, this is your violent mindset. I mean the civil rights movement didn't blow anyone away and they did a pretty good job of rebelling against tyranny and instituting real change.

I wonder if he "looses his shit" if the clerk ever asks for his phone/email at the store?

I get irritated when I just want a haircut and they start asking me that shit, I just say, lady..I'm paying cash, I'm not interested in anything outside a haircut...then they get cunty and don't talk for 12 minutes while I snooze in the chair.

I get irritated when I just want a haircut and they start asking me that shit, I just say, lady..I'm paying cash, I'm not interested in anything outside a haircut...then they get cunty and don't talk for 12 minutes while I snooze in the chair.

Glad he's on our side, and he brings a lot to the table on these forums. OnePost is no slouch either.