Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 551

Thread: Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

  1. #451 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,050
    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
    Of course, that is the purpose of the courts. Without them the president and Congress would be completely free to determine their own powers and there would be no check on those powers (including jury nullification).
    that's some very circular logic you're trying to spin..............it's almost like you're saying that the preamble is just flowery speech to the government and doesn't mean anything, like 'we the people'.........i'll bet you think 'we are the government' also, don't you?
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  2. #452 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,050
    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
    Yes, and it has nothing to do with amending the Constitution since that process was defined in Article V.
    you don't think the states have a say in amending the constitution? how many states does it take to ratify an amendment?
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  3. #453 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,728
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 1,320 Posts
    Groans
    86
    Groaned 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    you don't think the states have a say in amending the constitution? how many states does it take to ratify an amendment?
    You misstated my post. I said amendments require both federal and state action (not that the states don't have a say). The state role is ratifying amendments. The federal level is involved in proposing those amendments.

    I said the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the amending process.

  4. #454 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,529
    Thanks
    1,915
    Thanked 2,045 Times in 1,599 Posts
    Groans
    373
    Groaned 195 Times in 188 Posts

    Default

    So let's do nothing, and let crazy ppl kill everyone.

    I say we need RFL's and AWB.
    Intersectionality Hierarchy of Victimhood:

    Muslims
    LGBT
    Blacks
    Latinos
    Women
    Native Americans
    Sometimes Asains

    Not included: White males, Jews, sometimes Asians.

  5. #455 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,050
    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
    You misstated my post. I said amendments require both federal and state action (not that the states don't have a say). The state role is ratifying amendments. The federal level is involved in proposing those amendments.

    I said the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the amending process.
    thank you for restating it in a clearer manner, then.
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  6. #456 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,728
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 1,320 Posts
    Groans
    86
    Groaned 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    that's some very circular logic you're trying to spin..............it's almost like you're saying that the preamble is just flowery speech to the government and doesn't mean anything, like 'we the people'.........i'll bet you think 'we are the government' also, don't you?
    The preamble has no binding legal principles. The "we the people" is not a power---the powers and limits of government are contained in the document itself as exercised through the people through their representatives. You are claiming the preamble overrides the Constitution itself. The people can't change the Constitution except in the most abstract sense.

  7. #457 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,728
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 1,320 Posts
    Groans
    86
    Groaned 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    They have every right to interpret the Constitution. They own it. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or amend it, collectively.
    Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.

  8. #458 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,728
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 1,320 Posts
    Groans
    86
    Groaned 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Too bad they also attempt to change the Constitution from time to time.

    But you are not looking at the problem, only the success stories.
    According to your system those problems would be solved by constitutional provisions such as "we the people," the states, jury nullification, or whatever methods you think restrictions were put on the constitutional powers of government.

    Since those problems were not solved in your view those methods to check the powers of government either do not exist or the people, states, and juries were happy with those decisions and do not see them as a problem.

    You claim there are all these checks other than the courts but apparently they are not working.

  9. #459 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,050
    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
    The preamble has no binding legal principles. The "we the people" is not a power---the powers and limits of government are contained in the document itself as exercised through the people through their representatives. You are claiming the preamble overrides the Constitution itself. The people can't change the Constitution except in the most abstract sense.
    i just can't.............
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  10. #460 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,728
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 1,596 Times in 1,320 Posts
    Groans
    86
    Groaned 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    i just can't.............
    I know. You just can't show us any examples where provisions in the preamble (or Declaration) have ever been applied in legal cases.

  11. #461 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    2,252
    Thanks
    251
    Thanked 605 Times in 489 Posts
    Groans
    52
    Groaned 130 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.
    Prohibition
    Margot

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Miss Margot Frank For This Post:

    Into the Night (08-21-2019)

  13. #462 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    2,252
    Thanks
    251
    Thanked 605 Times in 489 Posts
    Groans
    52
    Groaned 130 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.
    Prohibition
    Margot

  14. #463 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    41,050
    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
    I know. You just can't show us any examples where provisions in the preamble (or Declaration) have ever been applied in legal cases.
    whatever. i'm done trying to point you idiots in the direction of freedom when all you can see is your comfortable chains. i'm out.
    The war on crime, war on drugs, war on terror, and now the war on opiods.............there's a reason they call it a war. So you idiots will easily accept the collateral damage of innocents

  15. #464 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    71,981
    Thanks
    12,860
    Thanked 13,208 Times in 11,097 Posts
    Groans
    14,343
    Groaned 1,662 Times in 1,610 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Back on topic:

    I believe that any Red Flag Law, needs to have a provision that includes the necessity of having a hearing, with the accuser and the accused; prior to any firearm removal and severe consequences for false allegations.

    Except for cases, like those recently, where the idiot(s) posted what they intended to do.

    My reason is:

    Someone has a beef with their neighbor, know they possess firearms, and makes a vague accusation, just to irritate the neighbor.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.

  16. #465 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    749
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 20 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think it's interesting to apply family tactics to point at others instead of rule of law.
    Once we establish, a weird moment from a family member to get 'Authority' involved we can then move to the first amendment of 'red letter' law. The law that gets a family member to rat out the non compliant group. (Fill in the enemy of limited profit) to suppress any other idea than billionaire lottery.

    Man this is tiring....

    So much failure of shared interconnected humanity and life by partisan bullshit. Sad is not the word, attachment is the, ... word.

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 Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 223
    Last Post: 03-07-2018, 09:14 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-16-2018, 05:52 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
  •