The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.
Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.
If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?
Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?
Where does this stop?
What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3
Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.
If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?
Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?
Where does this stop?
What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Of the State of War.
Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.
Last edited: