Citizen.Seven
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,967
- Reaction score
- 718
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The body is already infected, this may be the injection of the antibiotics.Yes it does. And a tiny nasty infection can ruin the entire bodies sense of well being as well.
If you have to get permission from the government to do something, it's not a right anymore. Would a requirement to get a background check prior to giving a speech, buying a book, or making a post be an infringement of 1A rights? If yes, then it's also an infringement of 2A rights. If no, then whether you support the implementation of this program or not, you acknowledge that the government has the legitimate authority to do it.Ah, refuse to enforce the gun control laws that HAVEN'T BEEN PASSED.
What ****ing planet do you live on? It's easier to get a gun now than it was 30 years ago, and you whiners still bitch about how they're trying to take your ****ing toys.
Grow up.
The body is already infected, this may be the injection of the antibiotics.
Politicians that willfully violate the constitution should be thrown in prison.
If you have to get permission from the government to do something, it's not a right anymore. Would a requirement to get a background check prior to giving a speech, buying a book, or making a post be an infringement of 1A rights? If yes, then it's also an infringement of 2A rights. If no, then whether you support the implementation of this program or not, you acknowledge that the government has the legitimate authority to do it.
The body is already infected, this may be the injection of the antibiotics.
A few milligrams of medicine can cure a 50 kilogram organism. You can call it extremism if you like, but standing on principle to protect rights at potentially great personal risk is heroic.NO - its just a small bunch of ideological extremists.
Ah, refuse to enforce the gun control laws that HAVEN'T BEEN PASSED.
What ****ing planet do you live on? It's easier to get a gun now than it was 30 years ago, and you whiners still bitch about how they're trying to take your ****ing toys.
Grow up.
That's an excellent point. Per the current interpretation of the commerce clause, and by the recognition that each state has the authority to regulate intra-state trade, they would be well within their prescribed authority to have such a requirement. The logic would be identical to the requirement for gun registration, both at the federal level and the handful of states that have their own additional requirements (NY, CA, NJ, MD, DC, IL, MI or, in other words, the rotten apples).I bet if some pro-life state passed a law that required women to get a background check before getting an abortion the supreme court would strike it down.
A few milligrams of medicine can cure a 50 kilogram organism. You can call it extremism if you like, but standing on principle to protect rights at potentially great personal risk is heroic.
Let me know when you find one that admits that is what they did.
Ever seen a carer criminal who admits guilt?
They are to uphold the law, whether they like it or not. But of course ICE is too, and we can see how well that works. If the law is at the discretion of the interpreter, we may soon see chaos. So I don't know. I am all for the 2nd and our right to carry, but am also for upholding the law, whatever it may be.
The second amendment is part of the constitution THE SUPREME law of the land. Further almost every state in the union has a constitution which at the least reflects the constitution. If a sheriff takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution then his priority is the constitution first everything else second on down. If state or county law is contrary to the constitution ,United States and or State, then the sheriff is under no obligation to uphold or enforce it.
What they do not grasp is the fact that one in three Americans own guns and when one takes out the numbers of minors (not allowed to own them) and adds in criminals that would never admit to own them (also not allowed) the number raises even higher. So when he says small number he is referring to close to half the population. Oh and don't forget those that, while they may not own guns themselves, do support the 2nd A, another group banners ignore because it does not fit their agenda. When confronted by reality most banners simply ignore it or repeat their same old failed arguments, the problem is they have no answer to the root causes meaning criminals and the mentally ill, remove them from the scenario and you find we have little in the way of a "gun problem".A few milligrams of medicine can cure a 50 kilogram organism. You can call it extremism if you like, but standing on principle to protect rights at potentially great personal risk is heroic.
What they do not grasp is the fact that one in three Americans own guns and when one takes out the numbers of minors (not allowed to own them) and adds in criminals that would never admit to own them (also not allowed) the number raises even higher. So when he says small number he is referring to close to half the population. Oh and don't forget those that, while they may not own guns themselves, do support the 2nd A, another group banners ignore because it does not fit their agenda. When confronted by reality most banners simply ignore it or repeat their same old failed arguments, the problem is they have no answer to the root causes meaning criminals and the mentally ill, remove them from the scenario and you find we have little in the way of a "gun problem".
Thank you for supporting my claim.
They are to uphold the law, whether they like it or not. But of course ICE is too, and we can see how well that works. If the law is at the discretion of the interpreter, we may soon see chaos. So I don't know. I am all for the 2nd and our right to carry, but am also for upholding the law, whatever it may be.
Actually I was using it to show politicians are no different to carer criminal but I guess that is what you wanted to say.
But all laws are an interpretation of our rights. Government has no power to change the constitution and just because it can get a favourable judgement from its own courts does not mean it is constitutional. As a matter of interest who do you think enforces and polices our law, the constitution?
But all laws are an interpretation of our rights. Government has no power to change the constitution and just because it can get a favourable judgement from its own courts does not mean it is constitutional. As a matter of interest who do you think enforces and polices our law, the constitution?
If our current laws state that such and such is to be enforced, it should be done. If laws change, enforcement should reflect as much. I don't care much for individual entities taking the law in their own hands.
Thank you for supporting my claim with your post #86.
If a law is passed and ratified then it's constitutional until lawfully ruled otherwise. Until then, a law officer must enforce all of the law. Not place himself above the law to pick and choose.
If a law is passed and ratified then it's constitutional until lawfully ruled otherwise. Until then, a law officer must enforce all of the law. Not place himself above the law to pick and choose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?