[W: #105] [#181] Ten killed in shooting near LA after Lunar New Year event

[coyote505]

I don't disagree. Are you comparing the US military to Russian military?

The biggest issue this train of thought illustrates is the mistaken idea that there are millions of Americans that think the government should be overthrown.

Until last February, there weren't millions of Ukrainians who thought Russian soldiers needed to be shot.

 

[rahl]

Nope. Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. And of course the 9th Amendment.

Neither mention abortion. I fully support the right to choose, and I think it should be legal in all 50 states. But there is simply no constitutional right to it currently.

Why would anyone need to overturn Miller? It already limits gun rights.

So you haven't read miller, lol

 

[rahl]

The only one here thinking I got schooled is you.

Lol, no. You were shown to be completely wrong regarding congressional districts in another thread.

I just responded to your claim there is no constitutional basis for Roe.

Which there isn't.

Here's a basic example. You had declared there was no constitutional basis for Roe. If that was true (it's not) how would SCOTUS have ruled in favor of it?

They invented one out of whole cloth. It's why it was revisited, and overturned. Unless you think Ruth Ginsberg was an evil conservative activist judge lol. Because she said it was incorrectly decided as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

100 round drum mags for AR"s have been around for quite some time.

Seem utterly impactable. Even a 30 throws the balance off - I prefer a 20 for that reason.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Currently

An example of a court case taking away a constitutional right.

Untrue. US v Miller is just one example.

What constitutional right do you allege the court has taken away?

 

[rahl]

Seem utterly impactable. Even a 30 throws the balance off - I prefer a 20 for that reason.

yea they are absolutely miserable to shoot. No idea why people buy them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem with 'ammosexuals' is that they see only their rights, not those that don't align with their vision. You don't think I have a Constitutional right to live safely in America?

The absurdity that one has a right to succeed, or excel, or thrive is one of the most inane and sinister propositions to even disgrace humanity.

IF we have a "Constitutional right to live safely in America" then all democrat are violating our laws and Constitution. After all, democrats from coast to coast have been emptying prisons of the most dangerous felons to prey on the public, as well and working with the terrorist Mexican cartels to import more violent criminals.

No, what democrats demand is not that people can live safely, but that people be defenseless.

Quote your claim.

Couldn't figure out the analogy you were trying to point out.

You're gonna need a source for that fat one.

Really? Perhaps you could clarify that specious claim.

Nope. Dobbs overruled settled law. A law that had been in place for 50 years and was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992).

Dobbs didn't overturn Casey, Dobbs repealed Roe.

The courts simply do not have the authority to create law. When the Burger court dictated Roe as "the law of the land," they violated the United States Constitution.

Dobbs simply repeals a law made illegally.

An assault on the BoR? Bring it on, there is only one political party working to end the American Experiment today...and it's not the D's.

For the fascist democrats, the only "right" protected by the Constitution is abortion - which is not in the Constitution.

The vaunted "right to privacy" that the fascists claimed was the foundation for their unconstitutional law went out the window when they wanted to conduct a witch hunt and scour Trump's taxes - suddenly the right to privacy was null and void

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the filthy Nazi scum wanted to GET TRUMP, so this civil right had to be crushed.

Yes, the foul pigs of the Nazi Reich stepped on another rake - Trump's taxes were in order - but another of the Bill of Rights was ended - and the democrat filth continue to wage war on the Bill of Rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I remember, I think it was in the Ukraine forum, someone asking the question how the Russkies were so far off in their estimation of Ukraine resistance to their initial invasion. A U.S. general said, among other things, they had neglected to consider Ukrainian civilians with deer rifles.

I read 6 months back or so, that the leading cause of death for Russian invaders is small arms fire - that is armed citizens with rifles.

democrats are terrified of an armed populace - their power is never secure when the people can rise up against them.

 

[mrjurrs]

Until last February, there weren't millions of Ukrainians who thought Russian soldiers needed to be shot.

So the US is going to invade the US? Just what do you think would drive millions of Americans to take up guns against the government?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the US is going to invade the US? Just what do you think would drive millions of Americans to take up guns against the government?

Quid Pro wants to use nuclear weapons against American civilians.

The delusion of the fascist left is that the US Military will back them in their drive to create to the totalitarian fascist dictatorship democrats dream of.

This fantasy will never come true.

 

[mrjurrs]

Neither mention abortion. I fully support the right to choose, and I think it should be legal in all 50 states. But there is simply no constitutional right to it currently.

So you haven't read miller, lol

Lol, no. You were shown to be completely wrong regarding congressional districts in another thread.

Which there isn't.

They invented one out of whole cloth. It's why it was revisited, and overturned. Unless you think Ruth Ginsberg was an evil conservative activist judge lol. Because she said it was incorrectly decided as well.

You know nothing jon snow.

 

[mrjurrs]

What constitutional right do you allege the court has taken away?

Privacy

 

[rahl]

You know nothing jon snow.

Well, I know there is no constitutional right to abortion, as evidenced by Dobbs, and RBG's own words. And I also know what miller was about, and it's subsequent use as precedent overturning gun restrictions lol. I also know there is no ceiling on congressional district sizes.

 

[mrjurrs]

Quid Pro wants to use nuclear weapons against American civilians.

The delusion of the fascist left is that the US Military will back them in their drive to create to the totalitarian fascist dictatorship democrats dream of.

This fantasy will never come true.

?
No delusion. The military, as one, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. There will be some extremists in the military (less than there were a year ago), but the vast majority will do their duty.

The fantasy that the military will side with the militia's is practically nonexistent. They know the firepower that the US military could bring to bear against the rabble.

 

[mrjurrs]

Well, I know there is no constitutional right to abortion, as evidenced by Dobbs, and RBG's own words. And I also know what miller was about, and it's subsequent use as precedent overturning gun restrictions lol. I also know there is no ceiling on congressional district sizes.

There is none right now, there was a year ago. "But experts say Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe was only part of the story. The second woman to serve on the Supreme Court after Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Ginsburg was an ardent supporter of the right to abortion. She just thought that right should have been grounded in a different part of the Constitution."

Roe v. Wade: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy invoked in abortion fight | Constitutional Accountability Center

WASHINGTON – In his draft opinion in the Supreme Court’s blockbuster abortion case, Associate Justice Samuel Alito turned to an unexpected inspiration to bolster his argument for overturning Roe v. Wade: the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As the nation’s preeminent women’s rights lawyer and an...

www.theusconstitution.org

SCOTUS upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 in Miller v US. That law restricts ownership of types of weapons...constitutionally.
If you want to say there is no numerical restriction on the size of a Congressional District I would agree with you. But from the beginning the House was based on proportional representation. So your statement that there is no ceiling on Congressional District sizes remains a misunderstanding of how our Constitution works.

Try this. It is possible that Puerto Rico could become a state. Current population of Puerto Rico is about 3.25 million.
It is also possible that Washington D.C. could become a Congressional District with a vote. Right now they have a Rep with no voting privilege. Current population is about 680,000 (greater than two voting states)

How many seats in the House would you give them if they both became states?

 

[Indydave]

ho-hum......

somehow some way we have to get more guns into the hands of the citizens......

 

[VanceMack]

?
No delusion. The military, as one, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. There will be some extremists in the military (less than there were a year ago), but the vast majority will do their duty.

The fantasy that the military will side with the militia's is practically nonexistent. They know the firepower that the US military could bring to bear against the rabble.

Your comments are ironic considering the leftist fantasy world you operate in.

The citizen militia will not ever need to rise up against the military. The military wont be used in a manner that is unconstitutional...because they would follow orders that were unconstitutional. If ever there were contention in the country to where a fascist government entity sought to control the citizens of the US in an unconstitutional manner, the military would side with the civilians...not the other way around.

Who the **** do you think comprises the military....leftists like you?

 

[rahl]

There is none right now, there was a year ago.

There wasn't a year ago either. There was no constitutional basis for Roe, which is why it was overturned. Ginsburg agreed.

SCOTUS upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 in Miller v US. That law restricts ownership of types of weapons...constitutionally.

So you haven't read Miller. We already established this.

If you want to say there is no numerical restriction on the size of a Congressional District I would agree with you. But from the beginning the House was based on proportional representation. So your statement that there is no ceiling on Congressional District sizes remains a misunderstanding of how our Constitution works.

It doesn't matter how badly you insist otherwise, there is no ceiling what so ever on congressional district sizes. You have been shown this over and over and over again.

Try this. It is possible that Puerto Rico could become a state. Current population of Puerto Rico is about 3.25 million.

ok

It is also possible that Washington D.C. could become a Congressional District with a vote. Right now they have a Rep with no voting privilege. Current population is about 680,000 (greater than two voting states)

ok

How many seats in the House would you give them if they both became states?

1 a piece is all I'd give them, as it's all that they are constitutionally entitled to.

 

[mrjurrs]

There wasn't a year ago either. There was no constitutional basis for Roe, which is why it was overturned. Ginsburg agreed.

So you haven't read Miller. We already established this.

It doesn't matter how badly you insist otherwise, there is no ceiling what so ever on congressional district sizes. You have been shown this over and over and over again.

ok

ok

1 a piece is all I'd give them, as it's all that they are constitutionally entitled to.

Didn't read the quote did you? RBG felt privacy was the wrong basis to decide on, but she clearly felt that abortion was a constitutional right. RBG couldn't have agreed, she was dead.
Regarding your answer? Sorry, you don't pass. Primarily because you don't understand what Reynolds v Sims says.
You need to take a civics class.
adios

 

[rahl]

Didn't read the quote did you?

Yes I read it.

RBG felt privacy was the wrong basis to decide on, but she clearly felt that abortion was a constitutional right.

There is no constitutional basis for it. Roe was decided on privacy, which simply doesn't exist as a right to abortion.

RBG couldn't have agreed, she was dead.

She flat out stated it lol

Regarding your answer? Sorry, you don't pass. Primarily because you don't understand what Reynolds v Sims says.

I understand perfect what the case involving state legislatures says, and how it's utterly meaningless to US congressional district sizes.

You need to take a civics class.
adios

why? I have and will continue schooling you on this topic as many times as you need.

 

[coyote505]

So the US is going to invade the US? Just what do you think would drive millions of Americans to take up guns against the government?

An armed populace is Not a threat to democracy. It IS a deterrent to Dictatorship.

 

[mrjurrs]

An armed populace is Not a threat to democracy. It IS a deterrent to Dictatorship.

Laughable. Can you give me an example of your claim?

You don't really believe that America is not a dictatorship because of ammosexuals do you?

 

[coyote505]

Laughable. Can you give me an example of your claim?

You don't really believe that America is not a dictatorship because of ammosexuals do you?

Typical PCPI post.

 

[mrjurrs]

Typical PCPI post.

So you've got nothing?

 

[coyote505]

So you've got nothing?

PCPI (Politically Correct Pseudo Intellectual) posts are usually not worth response. I haven't put you on Ignore solely for an occasional heads up on the viewpoint of the land of fuits and nuts.