aminalmutha
Well-known member
On the flip side, even the mayors are on crack, so at least they have that going for 'em. arty
"Soft" slippery slope? Look what has happened; Reagan greased the rails for it.Are you talking about Mulford? Mulford didn't restrict possession in any way, it only restricted displays of weaponry that implied a threat of force. It did not limit the weapons the citizenry could possess or inhibit the militia in any way. I call it the, "Shit or get off the pot," act. Either fight a revolution or do not. Impotent threats of violence are meaningless and do not help society. Acts of armed revolt are ALWAYS going to be against the law, this is how government must work. The 2nd exists to provide citizens with the opportunity to act against government if laws become tyrannical. All revolutionaries are criminals until they win. You can make a, "Slippery Slope," argument, but it is a soft one. The implied oppression of minorities that was presented by Mulford does stand as case in point to my warnings against Gun Control as a mechanism of the oppressive state though.
For DC, as the seat of Federal Government with no State Level resources, it uses the Military for a great many behaviors that would be a violation of Posse Comitatus in other States. Even then, the jurisdictional allocation of resources are pretty strict.
:dunno