Doc Dutch (05-17-2022)
Doc Dutch (05-17-2022)
ThatOwlWoman (05-18-2022)
ThatOwlWoman (05-18-2022)
AProudLefty (05-18-2022), Doc Dutch (05-18-2022)
I decided they were criminals -- which, as you know, is true. I'd certainly have preferred if they could have been convinced to leave without any rough means. Unfortunately, more than a few of them were after blood, and the police had hard choices to make. Fortunately, the way things turned out, most of the rioters ended up leaving completely unharmed, and the only ones who faced the roughest treatment were the ones literally breaking through the barriers at fall-back positions and putting our representatives' lives in danger. Thank goodness they were stopped.
[The capitol is public property]
That doesn't mean anyone is allowed anywhere, obviously. Every US military base is also public property. So are the evidence lockers at police facilities, and the inside of super-max prisons, and national nuclear research labs, the vault at Fort Knox, every US Navy ship, and so on. The fact we collectively own those places does not mean that We the People have decided that any individual person is allowed to wander around there any time he wants. We have set up rules. If, say, you decide you want to waltz into the hangers at Homey Airport (Area 51), without authorization, expect to be stopped, even if you're just on a peaceful photo-taking outing. And if you show up with thousands of your buddies and force your way through security barriers, expect to face increasingly harsh measures to disperse the crowd.
Wouldn't it be better to post cases that were on point? Your lack of focus really derails any hope of having a meaningful discussion here.
First, a pet peeve: it's "would have." "Would of" just sounds silly.You tried. You pretended that the Sons of Liberty would of rejected states power to ban this - they would of understood that states could ban this
Anyway, I didn't say a word about whether the Sons of Liberty would have rejected state power to ban this. Reread.
What lie do you think I told? Be specific, please.you are a liar - they respected their states - they feared the federal government having too much power.
We'll see.Again - courts will allow this.
Right now, the movement is in the opposite direction -- for example, the five arch-conservatives on the high court, in 2010, for the first time, decided that the second amendment applies against the states (something that had been true with regard to the first amendment for many generations, but had never been considered true with regard to the second until then). I can't rule out the Supreme Court effectively reversing course and overturning generations of precedent by saying the first amendment no longer applies to the states. With this pack of clowns, anything is possible. But it's hard to picture what nonsense they would pen to try to justify that reversal.We did not fight a war to prevent states from legislating accordingly
Mina (05-18-2022)
on point - like upholding the right to harrass me outside of my place of residence?
you find such a case - good luck
you reread shit head. you claimed this is exactly what they feared. They did not fear the state doing this - they agreed with it.Anyway, I didn't say a word about whether the Sons of Liberty would have rejected state power to ban this. Reread.
I was specific retard. they did not fear their state - you claimed this is exactly what they feared - a state having the power to do this - is a huge lie. you are a huge liar.What lie do you think I told? Be specific, please.
also a retard for making me explain something so obvious over and over
Bookmarks