From the horses ass I mean mouth Dianne Feinstein

When there is no rule of law, then what do you do?






Think about the end game..law and order...the security of a free State. Paranoid delusionals feel somehow threatened and think their version of "law and order" will be superior to the rule of law provided in the US Constitution..??? :doubt:

That's the problem. When the US Constitution becomes worthless, the USA is over. We're close.

Nonsense and ignorant hyperbole.

The Constitution is nowhere near ‘worthless.’

In fact, over the last 60 years, we’ve moved closer to the Framer’s original intent of the Founding Document than at any time during our Nation’s history.
 
Think about the end game..law and order...the security of a free State. Paranoid delusionals feel somehow threatened and think their version of "law and order" will be superior to the rule of law provided in the US Constitution..??? :doubt:

That's the problem. When the US Constitution becomes worthless, the USA is over. We're close.

Nonsense and ignorant hyperbole.

The Constitution is nowhere near ‘worthless.’

In fact, over the last 60 years, we’ve moved closer to the Framer’s original intent of the Founding Document than at any time during our Nation’s history.
What founders are you talking about Karl fucking Marx?
 
Think about the end game..law and order...the security of a free State. Paranoid delusionals feel somehow threatened and think their version of "law and order" will be superior to the rule of law provided in the US Constitution..??? :doubt:

That's the problem. When the US Constitution becomes worthless, the USA is over. We're close.

Nonsense and ignorant hyperbole.

The Constitution is nowhere near ‘worthless.’

In fact, over the last 60 years, we’ve moved closer to the Framer’s original intent of the Founding Document than at any time during our Nation’s history.

Pure horse crap. Our govt was never intended to be a welfare entitlement organization supported with taxes by the American citizens. Sell that to some naive college kid.
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.


Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
That's the problem. When the US Constitution becomes worthless, the USA is over. We're close.

Nonsense and ignorant hyperbole.

The Constitution is nowhere near ‘worthless.’

In fact, over the last 60 years, we’ve moved closer to the Framer’s original intent of the Founding Document than at any time during our Nation’s history.

what utter horseshit. We've been moving in the other direction at lightening speed.
 
The end game started with Wilson the closest we have come to good government was when Reagan was president, but of course you'll disagree.





http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ible-for-assault-weapons-ban.html#post6522098





How Ronald Reagan Passed The Assault Weapon Ban



As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

"We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety," the letter said.

"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons," the letter said concluding.

What part of the end game started with wilson do you not comprehend?





Why don't you articulate what you meant by that...?





Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio
 
Think about the end game..law and order...the security of a free State. Paranoid delusionals feel somehow threatened and think their version of "law and order" will be superior to the rule of law provided in the US Constitution..??? :doubt:

That's the problem. When the US Constitution becomes worthless, the USA is over. We're close.

Nonsense and ignorant hyperbole.

The Constitution is nowhere near ‘worthless.’

In fact, over the last 60 years, we’ve moved closer to the Framer’s original intent of the Founding Document than at any time during our Nation’s history.

We have? The founders would have supported the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act? The Kelo precedent that lets rich people take poor people's property? Progressive income taxation? Can you find anything anywhere to support that claim?
 
She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

You are perfectly bass ackwards
dunce.gif
.

Actually, if you want to discern precisely what the right to arms is you would need to understand how the Constitution actually works. Nothing in the Constitution grants government to have any interest whatsoever in any aspect of the private citizen's ownership and use of his/her personal arms for hunting, self defense or any lawful purpose. That's the controlling principle.

It is a "right" not because the 2nd Amendment says it is, but because it is a liberty interest fully retained by the citizen, held out from the specific grant of powers conferred by We the People to government by the Constitution. The right to arms was then redundantly re-affirmed in the 2nd Amendment, forbidding government to act against the right, just in case government ever forgets it has no legitimate power to impact the personal arms of the private citizen . . .

The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an "exception of powers never granted" and it does not depend on the 2nd Amendment in any manner for its existence.
 
How then do you interpret Article I, sec. 8, clause 15?

No need to, it is dead letter, rendered defunct by the Dick Act in 1903

Article I, sec. 8, clause 14, 15 and 16 are worth reading and discussing when Second Amendment issues arise.

Not at all.

The private citizen NOT enrolled in his state's militia and his state's militia having no part in actual service to the nation, is expressly excluded from being under Congressional (and Presidential) control . . . Actually twice removed, if anyone is counting.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
 
How then do you interpret Article I, sec. 8, clause 15?

No need to, it is dead letter, rendered defunct by the Dick Act in 1903

Article I, sec. 8, clause 14, 15 and 16 are worth reading and discussing when Second Amendment issues arise.

Not at all.

The private citizen NOT enrolled in his state's militia and his state's militia having no part in actual service to the nation, is expressly excluded from being under Congressional (and Presidential) control . . . Actually twice removed, if anyone is counting.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Don't tell them that they'll go bat shit crazy.
 





Why don't you articulate what you meant by that...?





Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

articulate? That's one of those big words that college pucks like to use to make someone feel inferior. Well I'll give it the old college try.
When Wilson signed into law and created the Federal reserve he sold the very soul and money of America to the world banking community.
 
What part of the end game started with wilson do you not comprehend?





Why don't you articulate what you meant by that...?





Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

articulate? That's one of those big words that college pucks like to use to make someone feel inferior. Well I'll give it the old college try.
When Wilson signed into law and created the Federal reserve he sold the very soul and money of America to the world banking community.





:lol: Relax, it just means for you to explain what you meant...I can't help however you feeeel! So, your position is there is no hope for America without some violent revolution solution???
 
Why don't you articulate what you meant by that...?









How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

articulate? That's one of those big words that college pucks like to use to make someone feel inferior. Well I'll give it the old college try.
When Wilson signed into law and created the Federal reserve he sold the very soul and money of America to the world banking community.





:lol: Relax, it just means for you to explain what you meant...I can't help however you feeeel! So, your position is there is no hope for America without some violent revolution solution???

oh shit I thought I did, no explanation needed, well maybe you needed it.
 
articulate? That's one of those big words that college pucks like to use to make someone feel inferior. Well I'll give it the old college try.
When Wilson signed into law and created the Federal reserve he sold the very soul and money of America to the world banking community.





:lol: Relax, it just means for you to explain what you meant...I can't help however you feeeel! So, your position is there is no hope for America without some violent revolution solution???

oh shit I thought I did, no explanation needed, well maybe you needed it.



:lol: Yes, I did... Are you going to answer my question?
 
Basically..there are several ideas going on here.

What's Constitutional..and what isn't.

And that isn't all that difficult to discern. It only requires us to recognize certain fundamental and fixed principles. Well, I'll just quote SCOTUS:


_____________________


"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​
_____________________

The government that the Constitution creates is the supreme power of the land but it can not act to retroactively alter the principles of its foundation. The government can not grant to itself more powers that granted by the people.

If it does try to alter those principles and claim extra-constitutional power it becomes what?

The Constitution makes no provision to take up arms against the government..none.

But it is a contract between the sovereign and the subordinate and if the subordinate violates the fundamental principles of its creation and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is no longer ---- the government established by the Constitution.

The people in their sovereign role can exercise their original right to rescind our consent to be governed, reclaim the powers we lent to government and cast aside the usurpers. And yes, as a last resort, by using the means of bearing arms that we redundantly secured with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

When the government has violated the terms of its creation and the contract that permits it to govern (the Constitution), it has surrendered its legitimacy to govern and can no longer claim the protections of the contract (i.e., preemptive powers, charging citizens with sedition or treason).

So once you start down the road of armed rebellion..you are breaking with the Constitution.

The final arbiters and enforcers of the Constitution are the people.

That's a pretty basic and fundamental point.

I doubt you can speak with knowledge on any fundamental point of the Constitution. All I have seen is profound ignorance (at best) and willful misrepresentation (at worst).
 
:lol: Relax, it just means for you to explain what you meant...I can't help however you feeeel! So, your position is there is no hope for America without some violent revolution solution???

oh shit I thought I did, no explanation needed, well maybe you needed it.



:lol: Yes, I did... Are you going to answer my question?
I gave you the short form answer

When Wilson signed into law and created the Federal reserve he sold the very soul and money of America to the world banking community.
Can you see it now?
 
The constitution would be fine, if the government actually followed it. However, the government wiped its ass on the Constitution and threw it into the trash in 1861. Our current government is not legitimate. It's nothing but a gang of criminals and con artists.
:(
 

Forum List

Back
Top