To impeach, or not to impeach

[Eric the Green]

(11-29-2019, 01:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

I think we would more likely vote to divide as a country at that point. We have the right to do that too. What's the point of going to war to keep some cities and keep a bunch of people that we aren't all that interested in financially supporting and  keeping at this point? Oh, you can call us sore losers, racists, fascists or whatever else as we are voting to do it and you can  call us stupid, racist and whatever else  as our President our troops begin to erect and  secure our national borders and you can  cheer as American run bulldozers are removing the portion of the American border that liberal fools like you had in place to protect you as well. As you already know, Americans don't care and Americans don't stop or get in the way  it's government  doing what its supposed to do that upsets liberals these day.

You'll need to vote state by state to secede, and I don't know how a blue government would take that "illegal" act. But if you did, as you know, it would likely be OK with me; unlike the blues of Lincoln's time. My only concern is that much of the natural beauty of America is located in now-red states that might secede, and that would mean the likely destruction of these beautiful wild scenic places. But a civil war to protect some national parks and forests and such might not be worth the cost.

I don't know how many states would secede, but Minnesota is not likely to be one of them, so to live in your red right-wing utopia you'd have to move to some place like Wyoming or Oklahoma or Alabama.

And as I said, your closed-off society would be at a disadvantage, because the remaining states would have more immigrants that add to our economic productivity. And since our approach to government that provides help to those who need it works better than your stingy approach which concentrates wealth into a few hands, your red-state republic would quickly fall behind our rump USA, and you'd be asking to rejoin the union soon, with your tails between your rumps and your sorry legs.