Why are Democrats accelerating the collapse of cities they control?

The constitutional amendment process.


The answer to every problem.


So, lethal force to defend constitutionally guaranteed freedoms could be ultimately appropriate in the democratic republic.

Not really. If it comes down to needing lethal force to defend a constitutionally guaranteed freedom then that constitution is meaningless because its not being honored by those who are supposed to be bound by it.

That makes absolutely no sense… to me.

One of the big advantages of having a democratic republic with rights protected by a constitution is that disagreements can be resolved via voting and what not instead of physical violence. So if it comes to lethal force to protect a right/freedom, then either that freedom is no longer protected by the constitution and therefore no longer a “constitutionally guaranteed freedom” or the constitution is being ignored by the state and if that’s the case the whole system is broken and that constitution is worthless.

And if the whole system is broken and the state is ignoring its own constitution, then thats an acceptable time to go all 1776 on it. That said, that’s not remotely what’s happening in reality.

It is possible to remove rights from the US Constitution but the process to do so is such a hard hill to climb that its almost impossible to do… which is a good thing when it comes to rights… less of a good thing if you, say, want to change how we elect the PUSA.

It’ll mean something when the violators get shot in the ■■■■■■■ face.

That post is complete and utter gibberish and it starts with the premise in the very first sentence.

Who told you that?

Not really. If you are talking about a 1776 situation then you’re going to be shooting a lot of faces and ultimately drafting a new constitution.

Its logical. Its why medicare for all is being debated with words and not guns.

Yes really. When somebody violates a law and you shoot them in the ■■■■■■■ face, laws stop getting violated.

Medicare for all is not a right.

If you have to fight the government with lethal force then laws don’t matter.

I agree

You’ve got it exactly backwards, but I understand why you believe that.

1 Like

Why draft a new one?

Besides the point, even if it was a right it would be debated with words and not guns.

If you have to fight the government with lethal force than laws do matter? When we started fighting England, I’m pretty sure we stopped following their laws.

You could reuse the previous one I guess… but if you have to destroy the government/state with lethal force then you’re going to create a new one to replace. We’ve already had a previous thread that illustrated that most people around here would change the constitution if they could.