Illinois-Born, Newly Alaskan

> I'm looking for a scope for this
@thiefs_magic That wasn't designed to be a precision rifle, anything you want to do to it is going to involve a gunsmith mounting something to it in a way that most would consider in bad taste.

What're the rules on @ everyone? We need to make sure people see this

"Shall not be infringed" got ignored, I think that any other words on paper are going to last just as long. That was written in 1776. 161 years later, it was infringed upon.

Also the citizens chosen for the Tribunal are literally just the guys who can afford to campaign for a spot; it says nothing at all about their skill at investigation, motivations, or honesty. You're just going to have 100 rich dudes standing in a room getting richer off of taxes in addition to any sources of income that they had prior to becoming a tribunal member.

I think the problem is the federal government, and I don't think amendments to how the fed operates are going to fix anything there.
I think the best way to move forward would be to disband the union. Create 50 countries with standing alliances. Every state already has its own house, senate, etc. and does what the Federal level does... but smaller. If a state politician becomes a tyrant, you go to the capital and you water the tree of liberty. You know that a state politician lives in the state, you know they have only the resources of that state at their disposal, and the fraction of people you'd need to convince to revolt is infinitesimal. If a federal politician becomes a tyrant, you fight a brutal civil war for 14 years just to /maybe/ reinstate the federal level as the status quo again. You don't know where the federal politician might be, they have the strength of the entire union behind them, and you need to convince approximately 98 million people to revolt.

Also if you disband the union, suddenly our movement becomes leagues more powerful. Illinois outlaws scary black rifles? The movement can assemble in any adjacent state and bring their force to bear against the offender.

What do we do if the Fed outlaws scary black rifles? Now we're separated outlaws with little to nothing in the way of a plan of attack.

Respectfully, I think the breaking of the United States into Individual States is much more realistic than suggesting the creation of a public office which will execute congressional members. Your own idea hinges on nothing short of an overthrow like what you describe mine to unrealistically require, as no sitting member of congress would vote yes to install a new power above them whose sole purpose is to be their guillotine.

All things being equal, if both of our ideas were brought before me as little folders and someone said 'Pick one, and this will happen", I look at yours and see no effective change. Your idea *relies* on those 100 members of the Tribunal being good and honest men who will execute their office faithfully. *You and I are here discussing this because for 244 years, that faith in good and honest men has failed and erroded*.

You are clearly thinking critically and speak well but I don't see anything promising in your proposition, I'm sorry.

I can't see territory wars happening in the modern day. Russia still does it for unclear reasons, and Palestine and Israel are always on the cusp of it for religious reasons, but land for the sake of land doesn't appeal to or help rulers anymore.

There would be no reason for any state to impede on any other, even illogical ones such as "Muh holy land" simply don't work in North America.

Not to mention Canada and Denmark have had an actually legitimate land dispute over Hans Island for several decades. They just replace each-other's flag every few months and leave some export goods on the island.

The standing alliances of The States would be enough to maintain state borders and prevent conflict for several hundred years, at least.

And that's not discounting how many of our movement would see a declaration of war between two states and interpret it as a tyrannical bid for power, leading to the self-same watering of The Liberty Tree that a firearms ban would warrant. This would again be easier than trying to muster a force to eliminate a federally declared war on, say, Canada

Edit: Corrected "Dispite" to "Dispute" lol