Matt Gaetz says gun are not hunting , their to take down the government.

[Clipper]

DC needs more people like Matt Gaetz.

Name one thing Matty has done for his district. We're waiting. Matt Gaetz is a punk who if it wasen't for his daddy's money would be cleaning bird shit out of cuckoo clocks for a living.

Tell me one thing that Nancy Pelosi has done for her district? Oh yeah, killed off quite a few of them...

2020 drug overdose deaths in San Francisco were double the city’s COVID death toll | Conservative Institute

While the coronavirus has overshadowed other causes of death since last year, deadly drugs like fentanyl are taking a heartbreaking toll in places like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) hometown of San Francisco. In fact, despite the impression left by pandemic fearmongers in the Democratic...

conservativeinstitute.org

She did? How? And spare me the Rushblew talking points, pinhead.

 

[meaner gene]

.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about your "castle" ...
And we weren't asking for permission to protect ourselves wherever we are.

.​

From the beginning of time there have been laws which barred some people from carrying or owning some weapons. But every one held fast to the castle doctrine. Which as long established common law, need not be spelled out in the constitution. An example of that is the right to marriage. Also so fundamental it was a given.

 

[meaner gene]

.

Seriously ... I don't give a rat's ass if Californians write a law calling themselves Unicorns.
I don't care if they try to use it in court and win, establishing Unicorns in case law.

It doesn't change what the US Constitution says or means.

.​

Actually it does. Like the overturning in Lawrence V Texas defined a constitutional right to privacy.

 

[meaner gene]

Funny, You did vote in Joe Biden the groper of women and children....Do you hate Matt because he is a Republican?

Sorry if I draw the line at people who sex traffic underage girls.

It's just a moral line I refuse to see crossed.

 

[Rigby5]

Funny, You did vote in Joe Biden the groper of women and children....Do you hate Matt because he is a Republican?

Sorry if I draw the line at people who sex traffic underage girls.

It's just a moral line I refuse to see crossed.

It is not that 17 is actually under age, but that the Matt Gaetz is 39, so is too much age difference.
If he were 19, then I would not have a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

A well armed population is what makes a democracy.
Nothing else.

 

[meaner gene]

It is not that 17 is actually under age, but that the Matt Gaetz is 39, so is too much age difference.
If he were 19, then I would not have a problem.

Most state laws recognize "Romeo and Juliette" where being within a couple of years in age is an exception to the statutes involving minors.

But as you pointed out, Gaetz was in his thirties, with two decades, and not two years age difference.

If only Gaetz went out with somebody half his age, he wouldn't be in as much trouble.

 

[BlackSand]

​

From the beginning of time there have been laws which barred some people from carrying or owning some weapons. But every one held fast to the castle doctrine. Which as long established common law, need not be spelled out in the constitution. An example of that is the right to marriage. Also so fundamental it was a given.

.

Uh, yeah ... None of that has anything to with the US Constitution (which we obviously agree).
It doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment, hunting, or basically anything to do with the topic.

Thanks for sharing your feelings and assorted ponderings with us, but it isn't necessary.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

A well armed population is what makes a democracy.
Nothing else.

Like at the battle of little big horn?

 

[meaner gene]

.

Uh, yeah ... None of that has anything to with the US Constitution (which we obviously agree).
It doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment, hunting, or basically anything to do with the topic.
.​

Where do you think the USSC draws its constitutional interpretations from?

They've cited everything from the code of Hammurabi to the Magna Carter to interpret the constitution as a continuation of centuries old legal doctrine.

 

[BlackSand]

​

Actually it does. Like the overturning in Lawrence V Texas defined a constitutional right to privacy.

.

You see ... As I mentioned earlier, the Bill of Rights restricts what the Government has the power to do in regards to a Citizen's rights.
The Right to Privacy had to be defined for stupid people like you
that would support the Government overreaching the power the Constitution, as written, actually granted it.

It didn't change anything in the Constitution regarding what was written and what it meant ...
It told the Government to **** off and quit pretending it didn't mean what it did in the first ******* place.

.​

.

 

[meaner gene]

You see ... As I mentioned earlier, the Bill of Rights restricts what the Government has the power to do in regards to a Citizen's rights.

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse

6th amendment
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What restriction is this placing on the government?

 

[rddean]

Do you think Matt Gaetz will be charged with child sex crimes?
It’s looking pretty bleak

 

[BlackSand]

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse

6th amendment
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What restriction is this placing on the government?

.

The Sixth Amendment still identifies what the Federal Government is restricted from doing the protect the Citizen's Rights.

It forbids the Government from locking defendants up forever without a trial, being judged solely by the government,
failing to identify the charges brought against the defendant, not telling them why they are being charged,
not allowing the defendant to know who the witnesses are or hear their testimony, deny the ability of the defendant from gathering witnesses of their own,
or deny the defendant legal counsel.

It's really self explanatory ... The whole damn thing.
It also doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread ...

Not that I would suspect you have the attention span necessary to manage staying on track.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse

6th amendment
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What restriction is this placing on the government?

.

It forbids the Government from locking defendants up forever without a trial, being judged solely by the government,
failing to identify the charges brought against the defendant, not telling them why they are being charged,
not allowing the defendant to know who the witnesses are or hear their testimony,

deny the ability of the defendant from gathering witnesses of their own, or deny the defendant legal counsel.

It's really self explanatory ... The whole damn thing.
It also doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread ...
.

The problem with your analysis, is that the sixth doesn't say the government can't deny witnesses or counsel, it says that the government has to provide witnesses (or the process to compel) and counsel (if they can't afford it)

You said the Bill of Rights was a list of what rights the government can't infringe upon.

So I showed it included obligations of the government. Duties it had to perform.

Your ignorance of the law is staggering.

 

[meaner gene]

.
It forbids the Government from locking defendants up forever without a trial, being judged solely by the government,
failing to identify the charges brought against the defendant, not telling them why they are being charged,
not allowing the defendant to know who the witnesses are or hear their testimony, deny the ability of the defendant from gathering witnesses of their own, or deny the defendant legal counsel.

It's really self explanatory ... The whole damn thing.
It also doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread ...
.​

​

Your problem is you had to lie about what the 6th says. A quick side by side comparison is all it takes to expose your fabrication.

You r claim: deny the ability of the defendant from gathering witnesses of their own, or deny the defendant legal counsel.

The 6th says: to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In essence you're claiming the government can't stop you from buying a pony is the same as the government being required to buy you a pony. They are nothing like each other. So you're just making it up.

 

[Rigby5]

A well armed population is what makes a democracy.
Nothing else.

Like at the battle of little big horn?

Not sure what you meant, but yes I am glad the natives were in the majority so won out, as should happen in a democracy.

 

[meaner gene]

A well armed population is what makes a democracy.
Nothing else.

Like at the battle of little big horn?

Not sure what you meant, but yes I am glad the natives were in the majority so won out, as should happen in a democracy.

History shows it's not just who has more weapons, but more often who has more people. The police were well armed on January 6th, but they were outnumbered 10 to 1.

 

[BlackSand]

​

​

Your problem is you had to lie about what the 6th says. A quick side by side comparison is all it takes to expose your fabrication.

You r claim: deny the ability of the defendant from gathering witnesses of their own, or deny the defendant legal counsel.

The 6th says: to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In essence you're claiming the government can't stop you from buying a pony is the same as the government being required to buy you a pony. They are nothing like each other. So you're just making it up.

.

The power granted to the Government and the processes the Government is actually required to serve in fulfilling Judicial duties are covered in Article III
The 6th Amendment identifies what it cannot do, or cannot deny, the Defendant.

Like I said ... You cannot make it mean something it doesn't mean,
You also cannot stay on topic ...

.​

 

[BlackSand]

The problem with your analysis, is that the sixth doesn't say the government can't deny witnesses or counsel, it says that the government has to provide witnesses (or the process to compel) and counsel (if they can't afford it)

You said the Bill of Rights was a list of what rights the government can't infringe upon.

So I showed it included obligations of the government. Duties it had to perform.

Your ignorance of the law is staggering.

.

It doesn't say the government has to provide witnesses.
Any process to compel witnesses is covered in the powers granted to the Government in Article III.

Again ... You cannot make the 6th Amendment mean something it doesn't mean.
It addresses what the Government cannot deny a defendant.

Struggle with it some more if you need to.
Fail to address the topic if you don't have anything worth offering.

But you are still wrong, and the Constitution still says and means the same thing it did before you tried to suggest it was something different.

.​