What would life be like under the rule of radical leftist democrats?

@soar2newhighs this is exactly what i meant in my post,, turning us into a third world country,, that's my biggest fear

@Kwek00I find your comment, [quote]But this is all happening within the legal democratic framework. What are you complaining about?[/quote] obtuse...again.

This is a matter of Constitutional law, not a matter of opinion or wishes. This is NOT something the states can overrule. And that is why the police refused to enforce the proposed law, and told the governor that they would NOT. It is against the law for officers of the law to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of their state. That is why they must read them their rights before they can arrest them.

[b]Federal law, and the Constitutional rights of citizens, supercede laws passed by city or state governments which may in fact violate those laws.[/b]

Thankfully, I do not need to agree with you. Because Black Face and his little crew backed down. They never attempted their planned attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens, because it would have blown up in their faces. This was a test case, planned by the radical democrats, to SEE if they could take away the weapons of legal gun owners by changing the law in a state (Virginia) that traditionally fought for their 2nd amendment rights.

This was one of the first steps toward an authoritarian, and eventually totalitarian centralized government.

And now, as fun as this has been, I have carpal tunnel and I can't keep typing.

@4meAndyou
[quote]This is a matter of Constitutional law, not a matter of opinion or wishes. This is NOT something the states can overrule.[/quote]

But constitutional law IS a matter of opinion and wishes. That's why you have a high court. And the court needs to make a descision if there is a discussion about the constitution. That's it's job. It's not "obtuse", it's how it works. It's how it's been working since you split up governement in 3 branches. The US is probably one of the first countries that choice too work likes this.

And if over this discussion a descision is made by the high court then the states have to abide. Because the states can't overrule the interpretation that the supreme court makes in case of the constitution.

The constituon is man-made, and that means it can change. The entire system has rules on how amendments can be made or taken out just because of that. And man made laws are open for interpretation hence you have an independent court system that needs to rule over these discussions. This is again not "obtuse" it's how the system works.




This is part of a court ruling in 2008

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[quote][b]Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is [u]not unlimited[/u]. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[/b]: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.[/quote]

@4meAndyou
[quote]This was one of the first steps toward an authoritarian, and eventually totalitarian centralized government.[/quote]


According to your dictionairy:

[quote]au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism
/ôˌTHäriˈterēənizəm/
noun

1.
[b]the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.[/b]
1.1
[b]Lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.[/b][/quote]


It's the constitution that grants individual freedomes to it's citizens and lays out the boundries in which a governement can rule over it's territory. The governement are representatives of the people, so the people chooce the governement to represent them so they can make laws. Meaning that the people, govern themselves through democratic majority with protection of their individual rights by the constitution.

If a normal majority is formed (50%), that means that a majority of the people have decided that a certain idea must become law. This law may not go against the constitution, which protects the personal freedomes of it's citizens. And this law must be adopted by the normal democratic process which is described in the constitution.

If a majority in Viriginia is formed to discuss and legeslate gunlaws. That's perfectly within the right of that majority. They can even legeslate the gunlaws as long as they don't go go against the constitution. Because as the supreme court has ruled in 2008, the gunlaws aren't absolute. Which is kinda normal, since certain states already have gunlaws. It's not that the entire US states are 2nd amendment absolutists.

But the people that lost the majority, those that aren't in the 50%, they don't like this. So they get agitated and rally. Which is perfectly legal, because we are still a democracy. However, in representation, when legeslation has passed... they are in the minority! [b]That means that they are the ones advocating for their own authority agains the democratic principles of the nation. And they have a total lack of concern for the wishes and opinions of others[/b]. The others, which create a legal democratic majority.

I love how demagoguegical websites like the sources you just stated use the charicature of "law abiding citizens". They are taking away the guns of "law abiding citizens". [b]The moments the laws are in effect, and the "law abiding citizens" isn't in agreement with the law... [u]then (s)he isn't a law abiding citizen no more[/u].[/b] It's so fucking stupid to polish up yourself as being a "law-abiding-citizen" if you have no respect for the law if it works out against your opinion. When you go against the law at that instance, it's the person that does it, that becomes the authoritarian. Because "personal freedomes" in a democracy are granted within the law. The majority excecised it's personal freedomes by abiding by the rules, the democratic system. And it's the minority that expresses a lack of cocnern for the wishes and the opinions of others.

But of course it's always the other person that is wrong. That's why your sources have to use demagoguegical rhetoric like [i]"Because Black Face and his little crew backed down. ".[/i] You have to create this illusion that "black face" makes the guy ultimately evil while he's just performing his duty within the democratic sphere, and the "law abiding citizens" are perfectly reasonable people even though they are fucking over democracy if they go against the laws of the land. And apperently, a governement that has a law is "authoritarian" now because they "enforce law". In my opinion, that kind of thinking, is pretty fucked up.

It's like when they made the legal code for using the public road. At some point, a majority believed that it was smart to use a seatbelt. But the minority feels pissed about it and say: "they are going to make law-abiding-citizens wear a seatbelt". Even tough the law from that moment says: "you have to wear seatbelt while being in a car". Poor "law-abiding-citizens" that have a problem with the "law". It's totally ridiculous.

@soar2newhighs I saw that. Sanders supporters are Anti-Fa...and they honestly believe that they beat people up and destroy property out of love...so they are completely insane.

@PainfulTruth And that's why several counties from Virginia are in process of seceding from Virginia, to re-join West Virginia.

@MartinII States rights allow counties to secede from their own states, after going through appropriate legal procedures. They may also secede from the Union itself, just the UK did with Brexit, for reasons like lack of representation or abrogation of rights.

@4meAndyou But that has never happened since the Civil War, I think?

@MartinII Not secession from the Union itself...but the Dems may see that happen if they do away with the electoral college. Our states, at the inception of this Union, were worried about the possibility of being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the populations on east and west coasts, which is why the electoral college was created.

However, the secession of several counties in Virginia has already begun. They plan to rejoin West Virginia.

@revenant I know. I am already afraid of the radicals. They appear to be insane, some of them, and they are violent.

@MayaHope Do you see any positive outcomes? If so, please list.

Oh I’m all apathetic @4meAndyou

@MayaHope Okay...sorry about that.

@SW-User Interesting perspective. What are your thoughts about where some of these radical policies have already led us in both California and New York?

@4meAndyou change could be good could be bad not that extreme though

@SW-User Do you think our country has enough money to pay for all the programs that the Democrat candidates say they can give us?