But the President cannot override a constitutional amendment by decree.

All I hope is that the 2nd ammendment is not changed.
But I wouldn't be too surprised if it is *heavily* modified in the coming years. Yeah it's not going to do us any good, but it seems like an inevitability.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Only a very small proportion would elect to resist in the first place, maybe 1% or2% my quoted figure was of that number, so that reduced your number to 80-160. Who when made aware of the consequences would soon think twice about the wisdom of their choice and of that number only a small percentage would actually resist with firearms (be prepared to shoot) when confronted.

Ah,... but you do. (See below) Not to mention the great amount of ill feeling among your citizens that illegals are treated the way that they are.
We throw all lawbreakers who are a flight risk, in jail, just as the US Border Patrol detain your illegal immigrants who are caught illegally entering the US. We don't have the benefit of merely being able to bus them back over a convenient border as you do. You picked a really bad time to make this stupid statement, as here where I live, we are currently watching a series of TV documentaries called "US Border Patrol". Last weeks show concentrated on the San Diego to "Smuggler's gulch" section of the border. 100+detained in one night, all locked up (detained) until they were returned.

Take that up with Rob. However you are oversimplifying the case. No!!,.. police don't just go around shooting law breakers....... but,... they do shoot people who use firearms in an effort to evade the law, as in the scenario we are presently discussing.

No doubt their oath includes swearing to uphold the law, so that argument goes straight out the window.

Very true!!

The police would become aware of this crime just as they become aware of any other crime, there are many ways, just as it happens here in Australia.
(1) The person concerned might make a statement of intent, (Not to abide by the law) which would result in a search of his premises
(2) Reported as having been seen with firearms.
(3) A person known to own particular firearms has not turned them in.

There are more ways than I care to try and think of. You seem to forget I live in a country where this has happened and I have first hand experience of just how easily and quickly it happens. I have no doubt whatsoever that your police are every bit as efficient as ours here in Australia.
let's start to just get a little bit realistic here. If there is a police stand off in any place in the US ,it makes the nightly news, why would this case be any different?

I never said anything about buying weapons or in fact how the law would possibly be enacted. As has been pointed out previously, if the need arises all laws can and will be changed. You speak as if they are cast in stone. Not so, I'm afraid. Just have a look at some of the laws that were changed or just over ridden by Presidential decree as a result of 9/11 and the Homeland Security acts. I know tht GWB personally over rode the wiretapping laws by presidential decree.

I believe that you live in a dream regarding the so called "sanctity" of your own laws. and only believe what you like to hear without any regard to what is actually happening or has happened in the recent past.

What ever. You may be right, after all I am answering an absurd hypothetical question. We are all conversing on a fantasy.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

But the President cannot override a constitutional amendment by decree.

Once again, you talk as if these things are cast in stone.

As we have seen previously, if the need arises, nothing is sacred. All laws ar made by man and therefore can be unmade, regardless of what the position is at the moment.

Personally i could not see it happening in the foreseeable future, but we are talking of a hypothetical situation, so hypothetical answers are in order.

Just as an aside. As a LEO, would you uphold the law, and do your sworn duty if this ever came to pass? (I don't think I'll ever have to hold you to it)

No that's a fact. No President can override a Constitutional Amendment by decree. United States Code (laws) are a different animal, the overriding of certain statutes by Bush was done under the mantle real or not of national security and POTUS has a limited power to do so. An amendment to the constitution requires a different process to amend, add or repeal.

I'm not stating that the constitiution can't be amended/changed etc it can and has , but niether do I consider the Bill of Rights a living document as some do.

Would I? I don't know I'd have to think long and hard about it, especially taking into consideration the why.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

No that's a fact. No President can override a Constitutional Amendment by decree. United States Code (laws) are a different animal, the overriding of certain statutes by Bush was done under the mantle real or not of national security and POTUS has a limited power to do so. An amendment to the constitution requires a different process to amend, add or repeal.

I'm not stating that the constitiution can't be amended/changed etc it can and has , but niether do I consider the Bill of Rights a living document as some do.

Would I? I don't know I'd have to think long and hard about it, especially taking into consideration the why.

A very good answer IMHO. It would be a hard act to follow, but one well worth considering.

I would never have believed that what happened in Australia could have ever happened either, but I was wrong, I was also wrong when I said that I would not comply. Which is not to say that I couldn't get my clammy little fingers on just about any firearm I wanted if the need arose, and I have been "out of it" for nearly 30 years. (Some leopards just never change their spots). So not a great deal has changed anyway regarding the availability of such weapons, it's just that it is now fraught with great danger to be in possession of them. I'll leave that to the "risk takers".

Originally Posted by senojekips

A very good answer IMHO. It would be a hard act to follow, but one well worth considering.

I would never have believed that what happened in Australia could have ever happened either, but I was wrong, I was also wrong when I said that I would not comply. Which is not to say that I couldn't get my clammy little fingers on just about any firearm I wanted if the need arose, and I have been "out of it" for nearly 30 years. (Some leopards just never change their spots). So not a great deal has changed anyway regarding the availability of such weapons, it's just that it is now fraught with great danger to be in possession of them. I'll leave that to the "risk takers".

Simple question.
Before they took your guns were you required to register them? Did you all ready have a registration requirement?

Yes, but only in some states and it was largely ignored. I only had two firearms registered.

Never the less, the risk of keeping them is totally unacceptable.

And Yes, we did have at least one bloke who fought the police,... he lasted two days before being dragged from his fortified home and treated for minor shrapnel wounds, then thrown in prison. He was determined not to give up, but he lost in the end. It sorta made others think about their mortality.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Yes, but only in some states and it was largely ignored. I only had two firearms registered.

Never the less, the risk of keeping them is totally unacceptable.

And Yes, we did have at least one bloke who fought the police,... he lasted two days before being dragged from his fortified home and treated for minor shrapnel wounds, then thrown in prison. He was determined not to give up, but he lost in the end. It sorta made others think about their mortality.

That is the difference between someone that believes in their rights and someone that doesn't...... Those that will not fight for what they believe in are doomed to live as serfs.

There are things far worse then death..... such as living on my knees. I'd rather die on my feet as a free man.

For me the issue isn't about firearms. It's about my rights being restricted and dismantled. I have certain rights that were given to be my the divine creator. These are rights that every man, woman, and child are born with.

These rights are the rights to Worship and Practice my Religion. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and Protest. The right to keep and bear arms in defense of myself, my family, and my loved ones against any and all evils in this world. The right to be secure on my person and in my home. The right to freedom of travel. The right to work and provide for my family without unjust taxation and theft of my goods, services, and profit. The right to keep and own my land.

If you violate these rights you are thus breaking the social contract that you and I have signed..... All that I ask is that I be left alone and allowed to live my life as I see fit without your or anyone els intrusion into it. I am not a serf and thus no man is my King..... I serve no one except myself.

There are also other ways: taking my services elsewhere.
Or else I'd have to shoot up the country I'm in currently.