Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 551

Thread: Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

  1. #391 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    23,259
    Thanks
    6,281
    Thanked 16,519 Times in 11,562 Posts
    Groans
    1,236
    Groaned 513 Times in 483 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Then there is no due process, Arse Breath.
    You keep flapping your lips but you produce no proof. So fuck off scrotum breath.

  2. #392 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy View Post
    Ever heard of the AMA ? There is a reason these dont get prosecuted especially by dem governors like Terry McAuliffe. He was more intent upon seizing the opportunity and not pissing off that PAC.
    like i said, on the states hands
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  3. #393 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post


    Getting your ignorant, uninformed ass handed to you today.

    Call a fucking waaaaaaaambulace, loser.
    not only are you the biggest fucktwit here, you're still mega delusional. you haven't done shit today other than spew the same out of context unadulterated crap that you always do. you got nothing, loser.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  4. #394 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    not only are you the biggest fucktwit here, you're still mega delusional. you haven't done shit today other than spew the same out of context unadulterated crap that you always do. you got nothing, loser.
    Let’s see, halfwit. What did I kick your ass on today? Oh, that’s right.

    DUI roadblocks are NOT unconstitutional.
    Heller says your right to bear arms CAN be infringed.
    You don’t have to fire a round to be cited for illegal possession.

    That’s above and beyond the three stupidest posts ever.

    Vehicles cannot be necessary in a modern society.

    Smarterthanyou wrote the Constitution.

    Gun regulations are not in the interest of public safety.


  5. #395 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    you're a loser. plain and simple.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #396 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    jury nullification has been a right of the people since the magna carta era..................so it hardly rings true that it would break down the entire constitutional system. if people are stupid and don't care to know anything about their constitution, then we don't deserve our freedom.
    Jury nullification was not used to interpret the Constitution or find governmental actions unconstitutional.

    The system is completely broken if, for example, a jury in Florida finds a person not guilty because they don't like the gun law. A person tried under that same law in New York is found guilty because they approve of the law. We don't know how a jury in Colorado or Virginia will find on that same law. That means Americans have no clue what their gun rights are because it varies by whoever is on the jury.

    That is not a constitutional system following the rule of law when our rights can change jury by jury. And it certainly is not following the U. S. Constitution. You claim the courts can't rule on the constitutionality of laws but a jury can completely distorts the document.

  7. #397 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No. The court does not define words.

    The Constitution does not define words either.

    Neither does it define words.

    It does, but not the word you're looking for.

    Okay. Let's go down through a series of questions. First, what is a citizen?

    I will answer your question, by asking you some leading questions. Apparently this concept is lost on you, so we will start at the beginning.

    What is a citizen? Define 'citizen'. Feel free to reference any eytomological information you wish. No dictionaries allowed. You may also, of course, try to define it yourself.

    So what is a 'citizen'? What makes one a 'citizen' of a town, a State, or a nation?
    You are trying to use historical and tradition to make your point---just like the courts do when they interpret the Constitution.

    A citizen is somebody born or naturalized in the U. S.

  8. #398 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    you're a loser. plain and simple.


    A thorough and complete ass whoopin’!

  9. #399 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    Hey thanks, but you are off on a tangent with your idea that you think the 2nd Amendment was written with the bat-shit-crazy idea that our fore-fathers wanted to keep it's citizens armed- JUST IN CASE THEY WANTED TO TURN THEM ON IT"S OWN GOVERNMENT.

    Do you really believe that kind of bat-shit-craziness?

    FUCK NO DUDE!

    Our Forefathers were very concerned that the King Of England could return and start the war all over again, and they did not trust the Kings of Spain or France from attacking us at any time either- SO THEY WANTED TO INSURE THAT THEIR CITIZENS REMAIN ARMED SO THAT THEY COULD ASSIST THE CONTINENTAL ARMY TO FIGHT FOREIGN ENEMIES!

    This was never about arming citizens so they could overthrow our own Continental Army at their own discretion!

    I mean really dude- that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! LOL!
    Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
    - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
    - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

    "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
    - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
    - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

    "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
    - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
    - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

    "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 ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

    "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
    - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
    - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
    - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
    - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

    "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to USFREEDOM911 For This Post:

    Into the Night (08-19-2019)

  11. #400 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Jury nullification was not used to interpret the Constitution or find governmental actions unconstitutional.

    The system is completely broken if, for example, a jury in Florida finds a person not guilty because they don't like the gun law. A person tried under that same law in New York is found guilty because they approve of the law. We don't know how a jury in Colorado or Virginia will find on that same law. That means Americans have no clue what their gun rights are because it varies by whoever is on the jury.

    That is not a constitutional system following the rule of law when our rights can change jury by jury. And it certainly is not following the U. S. Constitution. You claim the courts can't rule on the constitutionality of laws but a jury can completely distorts the document.
    so the founders, namely madison and jefferson, were huge ignoramus' that don't understand rights or the constitution? because you're aware that they promoted nullification due to the alien and sedition acts?

    you're also aware of how our constitutional system works? that the states have their own constitutions? and that if the federal government infringes on a state power, those states have the power of nullification?

    or are you one of those who were told that the supremacy clause means that the feds rule over everything?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  12. #401 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post


    A thorough and complete ass whoopin’!
    yes, your ass was completely and thoroughly whooped
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  13. #402 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    so the founders, namely madison and jefferson, were huge ignoramus' that don't understand rights or the constitution? because you're aware that they promoted nullification due to the alien and sedition acts?

    you're also aware of how our constitutional system works? that the states have their own constitutions? and that if the federal government infringes on a state power, those states have the power of nullification?

    or are you one of those who were told that the supremacy clause means that the feds rule over everything?
    No, I was never told that. But whoever told you about nullification did not understand the Constitution.

    You avoided the main point.

    If I am convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act and you are found not guilty under that same law, that is never the way Madison or Jefferson (who had very different views) expected the system to work. That would mean our rights depended entirely on the jury we got.

    If the federal government infringes on state power that law should be declared unconstitutional (by the courts). There is no way jury nullification could have guaranteed free speech by the Alien and Sedition Act. It would have been supported in the Federalist states.

    Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president just like it struck down the handgun ban in D. C. or the health care mandate. There was no way for "the people" to stop these unconstitutional actions.

    If most jurors in D. C. supported the handgun ban D. C. residents would be denied their constitutional rights because of the "tyranny of the majority." You want to allow that tyranny if the citizens support it which destroys the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

  14. #403 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president
    there was never a "Muslim ban" it was a ban on states unable to control their terrorism.
    ( Why Libya was include,but Saudi Arabia was not for ex.)

    SCOTUS upheld the Travel ban

  15. #404 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,485
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No, I was never told that. But whoever told you about nullification did not understand the Constitution.
    so you're now trying to tell us that madison and jefferson did not understand the constitution???????

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You avoided the main point.

    If I am convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act and you are found not guilty under that same law, that is never the way Madison or Jefferson (who had very different views) expected the system to work. That would mean our rights depended entirely on the jury we got.
    jury nullification was designed to prevent the government from enforcing unconstitutional laws and to prevent the government from using laws in situations that they shouldn't. the jury system was our last peaceful block against government tyranny.........and no, our rights aren't determined JUST by the jury, but it does take an educated jury to do whats right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If the federal government infringes on state power that law should be declared unconstitutional (by the courts). There is no way jury nullification could have guaranteed free speech by the Alien and Sedition Act. It would have been supported in the Federalist states.
    so YOU truly do not understand how the constitution works, not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president just like it struck down the handgun ban in D. C. or the health care mandate. There was no way for "the people" to stop these unconstitutional actions.
    the courts only jurisdiction in that case would be to compel habeas corpus. the executive has no authority to deny due process, even to illegals. the courts, by declaring said actions by trump unconstitutional, usurped a power that doesn't belong to them. but I get that you're one of those who consider the courts to be the higher branch of federal government, not a co equal branch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If most jurors in D. C. supported the handgun ban D. C. residents would be denied their constitutional rights because of the "tyranny of the majority." You want to allow that tyranny if the citizens support it which destroys the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
    again, educated jury, but we don't have educated people anymore. we have stupid and apathetic people like domer who think they know better than others................laughable, but then it just guarantees that our country was successfully destroyed years ago

    I repeat, jury nullification was considered a right of the people even before the constitution was ratified
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  16. #405 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    so you're now trying to tell us that madison and jefferson did not understand the constitution???????
    One supported the federal government's power to create a national bank and the other said it was not within the delegated powers of Congress. So they obviously could agree among themselves about its meaning.

    How was that issue settled? By a Supreme Court decision.

    As you know, Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was an Anti-Federalist.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 07-16-2019, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-05-2019, 10:01 AM
  3. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 02:20 PM
  4. Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 223
    Last Post: 03-07-2018, 10:14 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-16-2018, 06:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •