LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Finally A Texan Speaks Out, Impeachment!

vetteman said:
What about executive orders that can be construed as infringing on the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

Well, we don't know if they "can be construed" so until a federal court rules; that's what the courts are there for. It is not what the impeachment-process is there for.

And were you demanding impeachment when W/Cheney started with all their "unitary executive" crap, "signing statements" purporting to amend acts of Congress, "enemy combatants" held at Gitmo indefinitely with no POW rights and no access to counsel, etc., etc., etc.? They ravaged the Constitution into senseless torpor and left it to the next Admin to do as it would with it. Well, guess what?
 
Last edited:
RjThoughts said:
It wasn't just England. Though allies, the US feared France, plus Spain had territories close.
Click to expand...

So what's the point of asking the RWCJ to cite where in the 2nd Amendment it talks about tyrants and tyranny when said tyrants and tyranny were one of the catalysts for the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
islandman said:
So what's the point of asking the RWCJ to cite where in the 2nd Amendment it talks about tyrants and tyranny when said tyrants and tyranny were one of the catalysts for the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution was written to better define the government. After the failed Articles of Confederation, which gave the Federalists more power, something was needed, something to better define the role of the new government.
 
RjThoughts said:
Actually, the Constitution was written to better define the government. After the failed Articles of Confederation, which gave the Federalists more power, something was needed, something to better define the role of the new government.
Click to expand...

Actually it was the 1789 Constitution that gave the Federalists more power, and was intended to.
 
islandman said:
So what's the point of asking the RWCJ to cite where in the 2nd Amendment it talks about tyrants and tyranny when said tyrants and tyranny were one of the catalysts for the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Why would any one waste their time? You don't even understand "shall not be infringed." LMAO
 
BotanyBoy said:
Why would any one waste their time? You don't even understand "shall not be infringed." LMAO
Click to expand...

My guess is that you don't.

This is what we know until it gets interpreted some more.

****Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n.*2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

****We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.*S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.*C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.*C. 288, 289 (1874).
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
 
RjThoughts said:
Actually, the Constitution was written to better define the government. After the failed Articles of Confederation, which gave the Federalists more power, something was needed, something to better define the role of the new government.
Click to expand...

Again, what was the point of asking the RWCJ whatnot?
 
islandman said:
Again, what was the point of asking the RWCJ whatnot?
Click to expand...

The gun rights nutbags believe that only one part of the Second Amendment matters "Shall not be infringed." They forget the "Well regulated militia". Without the militia part, they are setting themselves up to look like idiots.

As written, when written, there was no standing army, per se, in the US. Therefore, the militia was needed. Without that need, the second amendment, as written, is becoming less and less reasonable. It needs to be rewritten, with the understanding that we now have a standing army. That does NOT mean a total ban of guns. It means there needs to be sensible, common sense, controls.
 
RjThoughts said:
The gun rights nutbags believe that only one part of the Second Amendment matters "Shall not be infringed." They forget the "Well regulated militia". Without the militia part, they are setting themselves up to look like idiots.

As written, when written, there was no standing army, per se, in the US. Therefore, the militia was needed. Without that need, the second amendment, as written, is becoming less and less reasonable. It needs to be rewritten, with the understanding that we now have a standing army. That does NOT mean a total ban of guns. It means there needs to be sensible, common sense, controls.
Click to expand...

How is it then that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
 
cjh said:
My guess is that you don't.

This is what we know until it gets interpreted some more.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Click to expand...

Did I ever say it was unlimited or couldn't be regulated?

HUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPADERP.

islandman said:
Again, what was the point of asking the RWCJ whatnot?
Click to expand...

Except how could I be RWCJ yet support universal health care, education, equality across races/religions/genders/sexual orientation's , pro choice, pro green/environmentalist and biologist, pro gay rights, anti prohibitionist. Even pro gun control.....all of which I have advocated publicly right here on the GB.

But then again I'm just a RWCJ, wouldn't have anything to do with you being a pretentious snob with your nose so high in the air you forgot the smell you are trying to avoid is your own bullshit would it?? Nawwww...;)

But you will probably just blow this off an snub some more to be Mr. Ain'tIsoCOOL like the blow hard you are. I'm going to go fuck my neighbor for a little while...TTYS IDOUCHE.
 
Last edited:
BotanyBoy said:
Did I ever say it was unlimited or couldn't be regulated?

HUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPADERP.



Except how could I be RWCJ yet supporting universal health care, education, equality across races/religions/genders/sexual orientation's , pro choice, pro green/environmentalist and biologist, pro gay rights, anti prohibitionist. Even pro gun control.....all of which I have advocated publicly right here on the GB.

But then again I'm just a RWCJ, wouldn't have anything to do with you being a pretentious snob with your nose so high in the air you forgot the smell you are trying to avoid is your own bullshit would it?? Nawwww...;)

But you will probably just blow this off an snub some more to be Mr. Ain'tIsoCOOL like the blow hard you are. I'm going to go fuck my neighbor for a little while...TTYS IDOUCHE.
Click to expand...

The point is, no one knows exactly what infringed means. We know handguns are pretty much off limits. Shotguns. Some rifles. Beyond that, who the fuck knows?
 
vetteman said:
Just a note, in Miller the court outlawed the sawed off shotgun because it had no military utility, inferring that if it did, it would be legal.
Click to expand...

Yup. Though it seems like it's perfect for self defense in some circumstances.
 
RjThoughts said:
It also gave the states the power to write laws that superseded federal. the Articles didn't
Click to expand...

:confused: No, the U.S. Constitution does not do that. The Constitution and legislation passed by Congress are the Supreme Law of the Land. Nullification is a dog that wouldn't hunt in 1832 and has been rotting in the pet cemetery ever since.
 
Outpost Pedro, Old Mexico...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QxsjZfbFk5E/UPS1n7pjQAI/AAAAAAAAJmM/M9Y8Lo-cNFg/s1600/homelight.jpg
..........................................................................................................................................................................Photo by John Wells

...down here on the open border of the wild brown yonder, where the Mexican desert flows north to meet the south side of the Rocky Mountains, a logical man is grateful to the Creator who blesses him with the unalienable right to defend himself, both against other individuals who aim to harm him and collectives who aim to herd him, and to America's framers who specifically Amended that that natural right shall not be infringed upon by any government or any man.

Yet, a truly free man moves as far away as possible from those unconstitutional (read: illegal) threats to his individual liberty, because he reveres that glorious gift so much and has not a maliciously offensive bone in his body...

...but still, they come.

And thus the free man is ever on watch, and leaves a light always on so any trouble fatefully determined to find him may easily see the way to its own destiny.

There is nothing more righteous on the face of this doomed earth than the passionate defense of individual liberty...

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.

Thomas Paine
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Finally got my partner to call me names 😍
Replies
13
Views
795
Raybies93
R
Rob_Royale
A question for the readers regarding anal sex
Replies
1
Views
109
SissySalina
SissySalina
S
Please help me find a story
Replies
0
Views
168
SirMoistalot
S
sister jenny
Mary Shelley
Replies
11
Views
914
shewantsmore
shewantsmore
D
Help me find a story
Replies
0
Views
33
DrOtterPaws
D
Back
Top