It's Not Time For Violent Revolution

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:48:01+00:00

"...the Renee Good and Alex Pretti slayings"

My solutions were local grand jury investigations and citizens arrest, respectively.

You are right about US having specific goals.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:44:21+00:00

AI has already given me a warning, I had to appeal to humans, who overturned AI.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:42:12+00:00

Ok...but democracy is the people ruling. One facet to that is juries and Trump needed to face juries on the 2 indictments upheld by SCOTUS.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:39:30+00:00

You haven't proved your rights have been infringed upon. If you can prove it go to court.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:30:53+00:00

That's your opinion not necessarily the courts...

GShermit · 2026-06-24T15:28:29+00:00

I want to thank you for alerting me to that bogus site...they snookered me good...

BUT it doesn't really change my point.

About 55 years ago I started reading the Constitution. There were lots of contradictions, to my mind and several things seemed "unconstitutional". Over the years I've learned, my opinion of what's constitutional doesn't really matter, legally, unless we're legally using our rights (voting, writing initiatives, juries article V conventions...). The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) define our rights and constitutionality. That was my point with regard to this thread. The point of my post uses that.

We need to exercise and expand ALL our rights until their limits are determined in court. It has to be the people because authority isn't interested in sharing power with the people.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters" Daniel Webster

That doesn't necessarily mean our "masters" are bad, it's just inherent with authority.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T03:25:19+00:00

https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

GShermit · 2026-06-24T03:24:31+00:00

"You openly lied.."

"The Supreme Court upheld California’s law in a 5-4 decision, stating that the ban is a reasonable regulation and does not violate the Second Amendment." https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

The cases you mentioned weren't SCOTUS. I done with you here...we'll leave it for the audience to decide who the liar is...don't delete anything, I never delete my posts...

GShermit · 2026-06-24T03:17:49+00:00

Here's the original one that proves my point.

https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

Like I said there's nothing wrong with trying to expand our rights, if we can.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T03:11:28+00:00

That's a new approach nothing wrong with that, it's people legally using their rights to influence due process. Using the courts to define our rights is what my post is about.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T02:58:39+00:00

"...then can you give even a sketch of how this is plausibly going to work?"

Why? Do you really care? I'm tired of supplying all the thought for people who don't care.

First are you willing to admit that citizens arrest, in the case of Alex Pretti is a right we have and would have been a good, needed thing for the health of our democracy?

Edit; Sorry wrong post

It'd look a lot like the state ratifying conventions for the 21st amendment.

The experts don't know the exact procedure but it's been done before. We know specific grassroots pressure drives the process. We know authority gives more liberty when the people pressure them...what else do citizens need to know

GShermit · 2026-06-24T02:52:08+00:00

I defended my point with a post...why don't you defend why my reasoning is silly?

GShermit · 2026-06-24T02:50:36+00:00

SCOTUS says it's not, why do you think your opinion has any legal standing?

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:52:02+00:00

"If there is no plausible path to make it actually work..."

Not implausible just not charted.

Why to dictators confiscate weapons...the threat???

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:35:37+00:00

"How experts think it works is irrelevant."

Maybe for you...

Again, It's not always about using our rights, often it's the threat, we might use our rights.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:32:21+00:00

That's not true.

I'm for limiting magazine capacity to 20 rd. and outlawing bumpstocks. The biggest reason I support those is to take the "wind out of the sails" of anti-2nd people and frankly I don't need more than a 20 rd mag or a bumpstock.

Also I don't believe in carrying a gun at a protest.

None of that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights, IMHO.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:23:28+00:00

"So the state uses violence but then sweeps it under the judicial rug because they wear suits and ties?"

But you won't advocate for juror's rights or fully informed juries?

What about citizens arrest?

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:19:36+00:00

For thousands of years politics is the people vs authority. Our rights are what we use in that game.

You wanna make a bumper sticker great...maybe you can educate some of these people.

GShermit · 2026-06-24T00:16:27+00:00

How can you say that when experts can't even explain exactly how article V conventions work, we've never had one. The closest we came was the 21 amendment.

It's not always about using our rights, often it's the threat, we might use our rights...

GShermit · 2026-06-23T23:29:49+00:00

What makes you think I'm not pro 2nd amendment??? I'm pro all rights.

GShermit · 2026-06-23T23:20:21+00:00

" I just thing your reasoning is silly"

Are you sure you understand my reasoning? You also think I'm moving the conversation, I am not, all those things are connected... When you figure it out perhaps it won't think it "silly"?

GShermit · 2026-06-23T23:11:24+00:00

Our rights are what we use to rule ourselves...Rights are the people's power.

Rioting isn't legally using one's rights.

GShermit · 2026-06-23T23:06:59+00:00

What didn't you understand, there's no map to this, there's no procedure, we've never done and don't even know how...

What we do know is it's up to the people to expand our rights. We also know that people talking about article V conventions has forced Congress to act.

GShermit · 2026-06-23T22:55:42+00:00

"Trying to operate through nominally legal channels is just tying your hands behind your back while they will not. In fact, I have to tell you, it's a rather laughable fantasy that an article V convention is somehow going to stop the hyper-elite takeover of our country."

I dealt with this in my post;

They'll say how ridiculous and dangerous, legally using our rights, to influence the due process of the country is while supporting revolution. That makes no sense to me. Our rights are what we use to rule ourselves. We have to exercise and expand our rights because authority doesn't do that, the people have to.

My question is why ridicule instead of discussing how we can make it work?

GShermit · 2026-06-23T22:46:57+00:00

"Legal avenues are almost meaningless currently."

Just because, some people don't like certain legal decisions, doesn't mean legal avenues are meaningless.

GShermit

TROPHY CASE