C'mon, be fair. Other people's children.America would rather see it's children dying in a pool of blood than to ever give up it's guns
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
C'mon, be fair. Other people's children.America would rather see it's children dying in a pool of blood than to ever give up it's guns
Easy enoughWhat guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...
.
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.
Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?
There are a lot of legacy weapons out thereI don't think Americans will turn in their guns....There are 300 million of them
But I think that when Dad and Grandpa die, their treasured gun collection will be passed down to children and grandchildren who really don't want them
I got an Uzi and a .357 lever action rifle when my Old Man passed.
Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?
Easy enoughWhat guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...
.
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.
And those shots tend to make a noise.....a noise that carries for over a mileBecause like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?
Keep our mouths shut ... Shoot our firearms someday ...
Hell ... The neighbors bring their firearms over and we shoot skeet and targets in the yard.
You seem to be under the false impressions people don't own and shoot firearms.
Of course I could understand that if you live in a city and don't have any land.
.
And those shots tend to make a noise.....a noise that carries for over a mile
Not wise when you try to conceal you have an illegal weapon
Semi automatic fire is easy to distinguish
Easy enoughWhat guns are you talking about officer ... no guns here ...
.
Your neighbors will turn you in
But once you get caught, you get sent to a FEMA Death Camp never to be heard of.
Why would my neighbors know I own firearms?
Because like all lawbreakers, you can’t keep your mouth shut.
You will want to actually fire your guns someday.....why else have them?
The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.
Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.
The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.
Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.
As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.
As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.
There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.
AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.
No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.Correction:
Point #2 should have begun with the word "Non."
It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.
Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry
So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:
"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.
The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.
I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.
Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.Are you asserting that something you penned in response to comments in this thread has been deleted? I can say only that of your remarks that I have here read and replied to, none have been deleted.My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.
The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.
Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.
This is the whole point the left ignores.
AFTER the debates and AFTER the Constitution was ratified and AFTER the issue of the Right to keep and bear Arms had been litigated and United States Supreme Court weighed in then THAT IS the law.
When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.
The United States Supreme Court has all but changed the Republic to a Democracy and nullified the Bill of Rights.
What is one to say to that? You can truly so contend.When the United States Supreme Court did not like their previous rulings, I contend that they did not, under our Constitution, have the authority to begin that process of unilaterally declaring themselves to be final arbiters of what the laws is - thereby negating the need for a legislature AND usurping our Rights, as a people, to be the last word on the subject.
Seriously? You put me through all that only to have no other rebuttal than to introduce the esoterica of jury nullification? Really?The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
Surely, this should apply to any legislator, governor, President, judge, police officer, or any other agent of government, who willfully takes any part in enacting, enforcing, or upholding any law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Every last one of them, after all, is required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as his highest duty. He agrees to this as a condition of being allowed to hold whatever position he holds in government, and the legitimacy of his office and of any action that he takes in connection therewith is contingent on his diligence in holding to that oath.
Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.In post 169 -- CDZ - Do you Believe Americans Would ever Turn in Our Guns? -- I expounded upon my assertion that the denotation of "law abiding" isn't debatable. Nothing has changed.Surely, no public servant who willfully violates his oath, and willfully violates the Constitution, can honestly be claimed to be “law-abiding”.
As is so for any individual, upon (1) a jurist's determination that the statute is constitutional and (2) the court's determination, given the evidence presented, that a defendant did indeed perform the actus reus and possess the mens rea needed to be held criminally culpable, yes, so it is that public servants can be called law abiding or law breaking, just as can anyone else.
As goes the matter of a public servant's violating their oath of office, well, the extent to which their doing so constitutes breaking the law depends on whether upholding it is by law required. I think military servants are legally bound to that oaths of office. Other public servants, however, may not be so formally bound, and those who aren't, if they break their oath of office can be said to have derelicted their duty and/or breached a public trust, but not not to have broken the law.
There is in the law a grey area whereby something must by law happen, however, violations of the code section isn't an offense/breaking of the law. Such statutes are readily identified by their lacking penalty provisions. The non-Presidential oath of office is one such law. Individuals taking that oath of office must, to receive the appointment and carry it out, take the oath as noted, but so averring is all they must do to be legally compliant.
AFAIK, the Oath of Office Accountability Act has not been enacted.
Your position was considered and studied. It has found to be false.
The courts had a problem with jury nullification and so they, not the legislatures, declared it to be illegal. So, the courts can be wrong too. Because the United States Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate from the bench, Trump nominated Gorsuch and I hope that he will bring some sanity to that body.
Yes, there need to be "regulations" so the FBI and local law enforcement can act when a person who is regularly violent starts threatening to shoot people. That was prior to his purchasing guns, but the FBI and the current regulations can do nothing until "regulations" are put in place allowing them to.Exactly. Regulation doesn't mean denial.The feds already have laws regulating weapons.Gun law in the United States - WikipediaGun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...
Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.
.
No law, nothing, will stop a person who has chosen to go on a rampage (purchased legally or stole the weapon won't matter). The Florida shooter already owned the weapons prior to any calls to the FBI or the school regarding his threats. The whole point is the FBI failed to investigate the issue and prevent it from happening, and the school officer pussed out. More "regulations" will not stop future incidents.
No, it doesn't. What the SCOTUS opinion indicates is that if one is found in violation of an extant law, if one can show in a court of law that the law one is charged with violating is unconstitutional, one cannot be found guilty of violating it.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding." Most Americans live under this delusion that you have to obey every law that the government mandates. Yet the United States Supreme Court has opined:
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
The original (first) Court decisions upheld the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Second Amendment. We covered this in post # 80.
Furthermore, without multiplying the many references as to what the Right means, let us take heed of the founders:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry
So, in a nutshell, what he have is a corrupt, power hungry government emanating out of Washington Wonderland whose judges have reversed both the INTENT of the founders, but have reversed the first precedents set by the United States Supreme Court itself. The founding fathers WARNED against this. For example, George Washington (our first president) said in his Farewell Speech:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
The current legal view by the power lobby that controls the judiciary actually believes they can continue to reinterpret our Constitution until it is, as George W. Bush called it "nothing but a G.D. piece of paper" and he didn't abbreviate it. The founders view on the Second Amendment was simple:
"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, (Coxe was writing in support of James Madison's contribution to the United States Constitution which happened to be the Bill of Rights.
The meaning of "law abiding" isn't debatable; there are no gradations of it. A law abiding citizen is one who does not willfully violate any law to which they are subject.It all depends upon you classify as "law abiding."
And my above post proves you wrong by no less than the United States Supreme Court. You need to READ a post before replying.
I agree with the Court's jurisprudence (foundational legal theory) and with its practical implications. That said, one of those implications is that one must prevail in making one's case about the unconstitutionality of the law one is charged with violating. If one does not and one is found guilty of violating it, one is not law abiding.
Quite simply one does not get to decide unilaterally what law(s) is or isn't constitutional; jurists are the only people authorized to make that determination. Accordingly, one who acts in violation of an extant law because s/he asserts (to him-/herself or publicly) the law itself unconstitutional must obtain a jurist's concordance with that assertion. The process for doing so entails either submitting an amicus brief or being a defendant and using and pursuing an "unconstitutionality of the statute" defense.
My replies are being deleted. There is no honest discussion when censorship and then another poster wanting to bully me are allowed. I can't fight with my hands tied behind my back.
Are you asserting that something you penned in response to comments in this thread has been deleted? I can say only that of your remarks that I have here read and replied to, none have been deleted.
Let me be clear, you'll need to carefully read and consider my remarks if you are going to engage with me in a discussion. You need to do that because I accord to you (and anyone to whom I respond in writing) the courtesy of carefully reading and considering their remarks.I can forward the message I got from the mods alerting me to the fact that they did delete my response.
YOU made the inference that I was advocating disobeying laws simply because I disagree with them. You know better.
Your quoting of the SCOTUS doesn't mean you get to decide what laws are to be followed or not.
So, why does the Supreme Court get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution it will uphold and which it will not?
Yes, there need to be "regulations" so the FBI and local law enforcement can act when a person who is regularly violent starts threatening to shoot people. That was prior to his purchasing guns, but the FBI and the current regulations can do nothing until "regulations" are put in place allowing them to.Exactly. Regulation doesn't mean denial.The feds already have laws regulating weapons.Gun law in the United States - WikipediaGun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Regulation does not necessarily mean denial ...
Just like it is a common misconception that a private citizen cannot own a machine gun.
That's not true ... It's just extremely difficult and expensive.
.
No law, nothing, will stop a person who has chosen to go on a rampage (purchased legally or stole the weapon won't matter). The Florida shooter already owned the weapons prior to any calls to the FBI or the school regarding his threats. The whole point is the FBI failed to investigate the issue and prevent it from happening, and the school officer pussed out. More "regulations" will not stop future incidents.