rule 14
Canada bans handguns
- Thread starter Into the Night
- Start date
rule 14
You are applying a conditional where none exists. Discard of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States.
There is no such thing as a constitutional right. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.
Guns cannot be limited or banned in any way.
Rule 18. Gotcha!
They both stand related to each other. Both phrases are discussing the right of self defense. The right of a State to defend itself using militias, and the right of the individual to defend himself by keeping and bearing arms (weapons).
NEITHER right shall be infringed. The 2nd amendment discusses the inherent right of self defense for two cases, not one. The right of the State (which is made up of people), and the right of the individual (the people themselves).
States defend themselves by organizing militias (an army). The State regulates that army, issues it's supplies including ammunition and guns, etc.
Individuals defend themselves by using weapons of their choosing. ANY type of weapon, including any type of gun.
These rights do not come from the Constitution. They are inherent. They are part of the natural rights of Man. The purpose of a constitution is not to grant rights. It is to describe and organize a government, and to give it certain limited powers. The Constitution specifically prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing on the right of a State to defend itself (as a free State), or the right of an individual to defend himself.
The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States. They despise it, though they try to hide behind it. They also discard the constitutions of the various States. They have converted the federal government into an oligarchy.
There is no conditional in the 2nd amendment.
The Supreme Court has no authority over the Constitution.
Irrelevant random question. Attempt to force a pivot.
Canadians are packing gun stores buying every pistol they can get their hands on and ammunition for them. King Trudeau had better think long and hard about what he is attempting.
rule 14
You like Trump and Trump likes Putin. You are an oligarch supporter by extension.
Rule 18 with a 20% penalty for being boring.
Word stuffing. Trump is not a fan of Putin, and Putin prefers Democrats in power. Putin is a socialist. Trump is a conservative.
Rule 14.
Rule 18.
Trump loves dictatorial assholes like Putin and Kim because Trump is a wannabe dictator. I guess he's too old to rape little girls, so now he wants to be a dictator instead. Go figure.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3471426-is-trump-asking-putin-for-favors-again/
Is Trump asking Putin for favors again?
...On April 22, in a talk to the conservative Heritage Foundation at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., Mr. Trump bragged that during a NATO conference while he was in office, he threatened that he would not honor the NATO treaty’s Article V, the pledge that all signatories would defend any member attacked by Russia.
Think about the timing of dropping that memory bomb.
Was it an accident that Trump made the comments in a speech while Putin carries out his barbarous invasion of Ukraine? At such a moment, would any politician more concerned about Russia’s purposeful murder of civilians than his own future have boasted of a threat not to defend NATO countries?
I think Trump was sending a message to Putin — the 2022 version of his 2016 campaign invitation to hack Hillary Clinton’s email accounts: “Russia, if you are listening …”
Back then, the implied quid pro quo was that if Trump got the campaign help, he’d return the favor by cozying up to Putin’s strategic objectives, perhaps even reducing sanctions.
Now, just as in 2016, Trump is running again for president, and he wants help. Trump likely wouldn’t mind having some foreign assistance now against his rising GOP rivals, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But he certainly knows he could use Putin’s help going forward, whether through hacking of Hunter Biden’s email accounts or a disinformation campaign that duplicates the one in 2016 that got 12 Russian military officers indicted.
Rule 18, subsection D. 100 ban points added.
Until 2010, they had free rein to do so, limited only by their own constitutions. But the arch-conservatives in 2010 invented a new rule that basically means federal judges have veto power over that traditional state prerogative.
It contemplates an individual right in support of the goal of having well-regulated militias to defend the states.
Now compare that to banning Abortion. Should it be by state or Federal decree?
See how that works? If you empower the Feds to control all the States then whoever controls the Feds controls the nation. A large, powerful central government has been a Democrat goal since FDR. Their motto is "We know what's best for you".
Abortion is an easy one: just let people decide what to do with their own uteruses. That was more or less what the rule was when the federal government recognized a fundamental right, but now that the Republican operatives on the court appear to be punting the issue to the states, we'll get government stripping away basic human rights.
Sounds like fertile ground for emerging gang lords.