Can you not remain on a subject without making an example of another obscurely related one? Paragraph One's
Just sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy when combined with Paragraph Two's
It ultimately comes down to philosophy. From where is a government's power gained? The consent of the governed? Or do the people who find themselves in authority over others have a divine right to wield that authority? Are leaders selected, or are they born? Are governments systems erected by the people, or are people a system managed by the government?
Ultimately, if you believe that those who are in the political caste have the privileged position to determine what course of action is best for people, then you believe that people are subjects of their government and that consent is not required to govern. In short - you believe the power of people in government is and should be to command the lives of others toward/along whatever ideals or goals they set forth, and it is the duty of those people to follow.
If power is derived from the consent of the governed, then there are things that no government can be permitted to do, or it risks invalidating that consent. If you allow me to chain you to the bed, then you are completely exposed to my willingness to not rape you - because at that point, the only thing that really determines whether or not *** happens is my decision - yours simply determines whether or not it's considered a crime.
When you allow the government to chain you to the bed, all is well and good when the government is doing things you want. When it's suddenly doing things you don't want... well... what are you going to do about it?
The Constitution exists to keep the government from placing those chains on people - to stand as a contract and standard for things we will not do to each other. We are not going to take your right to protect yourself away. We are not going to chain you to the bed. We are not going to strike at you with the law for speaking your mind. To do so is not just wrong because it's something we feel is over-the-top, but because allowing others to do this to you (not just ourselves), exposes you to undue risk. It removes your ability to enforce your own decisions and to genuinely give your consent to be governed.
It's not about a love for guns, a love for hunting - or even, really, a fear of the government. It is the belief that it is wrong for me to walk over and tell you that you can't carry that OC spray in your purse... trust me... all of me and my pals are good people who just like escorting young ladies through dark alleys.
I would rather get shot by a woman having a mental breakdown than to see a society where the good people are denied the ability to enforce their own free will.
Seeing that you like history as much as you do, maybe you can imagine something like that coming out of nowhere, but I can't. Why our general politicians would huddle up to enact something of the sort and how it'd fly past the judicial system is bizarre to me. Would said civil war be due to the "revolts?"
Contingencies. Pre-scripted plans set to trigger conditions. Operatives in place. Once triggered, decapitation. Burn the forest and rely on the seeds.
The issue of a civilian war also runs into the last Paragraph's entirety and its
If they're voting in SO many politicians with the mindset of "kill the rioters" or "kill the purple men who do 'x,' 'y,' or 'z'" that the politicians can feasibly enact such laws, then yes, I wouldn't trust those kinds of idiots voting let alone with a gun.
You're thinking in a rather narrow context.
Who is Laura Silsby? Woman arrested in Haiti for trying to smuggle children out of country. Promised parents would be adopted and given education. No official paperwork.
Member of Clinton network. Bailed out of jail by Clintons. Charges dropped.
U.N. Trafficking problems. Aid workers in any situation they get involved in. Real reason for involvement. Standard Hotels. How many "undocumented" inside western nations? Controlled. Fear of criminal conviction and deportation if escape and caught. Slaves.
You trust law enforcement to enforce the laws. When certain groups of them in key locations are in on the *** parties? Even those who escape and do properly go to authorities are recycled back into the system and severely punished.
Evil.
Standard Hotel. Yacht Clubs.
Allison Mack. NXIVM. Abramovic.
Sibyl System. These are the people who you entrust to rule over you.
Urubuchi has a keen intellect.
Then why wouldn't I hold the belief that they shouldn't have the right to vote on the basis of their perceived intelligence and/or character? The distinctions between the right to vote and the right to bare arms cuts me short there. America's government is ultimately to govern its people, I think putting nukes and sorts into the hands of those who we elected is a necessary part of that but don't feel the same to the right to bare arms. You can point out that the right may serve vital should there be a war on our soil, but, and it is my stubbornness that says this rather than reasoning, that's not something I feel weighs in too heavily.
The people who you vote into office are, as they continually seek to expand their authority over you, granted the ability to declare evil lawful and good criminal, given time. Who counts the votes? Why are there more registered voters in some districts than there are people living? How can voter turnout exceed the living population?
What about other phenomena, such as what happened in regard to the 2016 election? When people begin to conspire across state and regional lines to skew the vote? A person who is in a heavily democratic state may decide to vote republican if their friend in another state that is less certain will go out and vote democrat.
When large networks of out-of-state protesters are bussed in by various interest groups to protest within a community in an attempt to coerce people into believing their community wants a given policy or another - once again... is the ideal of voting living up to the reality of it?
The reason I choose to honor the decisions from the ballot box are because most of these issues are relatively minor. Very few of them substantially impact the way I live. They are decisions on where to put the community pool, what the design of the park should look like, who should water the flowers - these types of things. If I don't get my way, it's not a huge deal. If the offices of government are well constrained in what authorities they can take, then it is, again, not worth taking matters into my own hands and ending the government because someone a little less than honest got into the office this time around.
This is why the powers and authorities of government are constrained. When the judge, who was just voted in, has the authority to dismiss criminal charges against a local gang leader - then it becomes rather important to pick that judge. When the state legislature and governor have the power to make showering illegal and throw you in jail for using too much water.... becomes pretty damned important to make sure sensible people get into those positions.
The more powerful government becomes, the more unsavory types are drawn into its service, and the more untenable the system becomes as more and more groups are increasingly alienated from the policy decisions of an out of control government.
Europe has to live with it. They have very few options for recourse. They are going to house refugees. Those refugees are going to get special rights over them. They are going to continue to go to work to support these systems, and they are going to be replaced by the migrant populations, generation by generation.
Barring an exceptional display of patriotism from their military, or a foreign invasion to save them. It is game over, and all they can do is pray that their government miraculously chooses to reverse course.