Sound Legal Advice vs Armed Insurrection

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#267 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
You changing your tune?
Weren't you claiming just a little bit ago that the majority oppose greater gun regulation?
Now you are saying that the majority DOES support greater regulation, but they're stupid?
The Gallup poll indicated that gun control was not a top priority of 96% of Americans.

The End.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#268 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe he is considering people who are mentally unstable or have criminal records.
The NRA just refers to them as "bad people with guns," you know the ones who can only be stopped by "good people with guns."
Do you have an inside line to Obama?
Did you chat with him when you had your breakfast menu OK'd this morning?

Face it. Neither you nor any other American has a clear understanding of what this administration means by "dangerous" people and "review" of the categories.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#269 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not talking about all firearms, here. NY defined a category of assault weapons, and Obama included the same in his recommendations.
But, even looking at the entire set of all firearms, they certainly are not evenly spread out. Some people have many. Most people have none.
People who maintain large caches of illegal armaments are a danger and a threat to those around them--sorta like the meth lab people.
Arms are arms.

The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
Read it.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#270 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to its illogical conclusion.
Remember Chicken Little.
I'll agree that Obama's actions are illogical.
He is gutting the Constitution he is about to swear an oath to protect...for the second time.

Real Americans are not fooled.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#271 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of Constitutionality, the power to interpret does rest with the state.
Absolutely wrong.
There is no power to "interpret" per se; there is a right to adjudicate whether or not a law violates the original meaning of the Constitution. And that power resides equally among the three branches, all of which swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

In other words, Congress should not propose unconstitutional legislation.
The president should not sign unconstitutional legislation or enact unconstitutional executive measures.
And the Supreme Court should rule against either of the above branches if they so violate the Constitution.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#272 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see the part that says that assault weapons are essentially equivalent to "the class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense." Unless I am mistaken their ruling is pretty much specific to the handgun ban.
The founders did not intend to limit the citizens' defense in comparison to that of the potential tyrant.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#273 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gallup poll indicated that gun control was not a top priority of 96% of Americans.
The End.
Do you comprehend the difference between A top priority and THE top priority?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#274 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an inside line to Obama?
Did you chat with him when you had your breakfast menu OK'd this morning?
Face it. Neither you nor any other American has a clear understanding of what this administration means by "dangerous" people and "review" of the categories.
No--I read the article on what he proposed at his press conference today.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#275 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Arms are arms.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
Read it.
And where does the Constitution (or a Supreme Court ruling) say that all arms are equivalent?

In the case you offered they were rather specific in setting some limitation with regard to the application of their ruling--home defense, hand-guns.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#276 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you comprehend the difference between A top priority and THE top priority?
I do. And in the last week, Gallup found gun control was down at #7...something you have a difficult time acknowledging.

You may reference your other polls indicating a majority of Americans favor gun restrictions and like Joe Biden. First, those combined results give me a very good idea of exactly which Americans were polled. Second, the fact remains that gun control is not a top priority to an overwhelming majority of Americans.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#277 Jan 16, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
And where does the Constitution (or a Supreme Court ruling) say that all arms are equivalent?
In the case you offered they were rather specific in setting some limitation with regard to the application of their ruling--home defense, hand-guns.
The phrase "shall not be infringed" clearly implies no limitations.
The same phrase is used in the First Amendment.

The Obama administration obviously struggles with these issues, what with unconstitutional contraceptive mandates and unconstitutional executive gun control measures.

Constitutional law professor....my arse.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#278 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gallup poll indicated that gun control was not a top priority of 96% of Americans.
The End.
Didn't we go over this already. That is absolutely not what it said. Are you being stupid or disingenuous?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#279 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely wrong.
There is no power to "interpret" per se; there is a right to adjudicate whether or not a law violates the original meaning of the Constitution. And that power resides equally among the three branches, all of which swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
In other words, Congress should not propose unconstitutional legislation.
The president should not sign unconstitutional legislation or enact unconstitutional executive measures.
And the Supreme Court should rule against either of the above branches if they so violate the Constitution.
I'm leaning toward you being that stupid.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#280 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No way you're a lawyer...at least not a good one.
You've no idea how a citizen challenges a law that interferes with his Constitutional rights?
I don't? I'm pretty sure it involves more than going on Topix and typing "unconstitutional."
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#281 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase "shall not be infringed" clearly implies no limitations.
The same phrase is used in the First Amendment.
The Obama administration obviously struggles with these issues, what with unconstitutional contraceptive mandates and unconstitutional executive gun control measures.
Constitutional law professor....my arse.
Evidently, you know more about the constitution than every single Justice of the United States Supreme Court in history because there are plenty of restrictions on both the 1st and 2d amendment. You are quite amazing.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#282 Jan 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't? I'm pretty sure it involves more than going on Topix and typing "unconstitutional."
Like I said, you don't have a clue.
Further, "interpretation" is not the equivalent of judicial activism, i.e., legislating from the bench.
Sorry to quash your progressive dream.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#283 Jan 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently, you know more about the constitution than every single Justice of the United States Supreme Court in history because there are plenty of restrictions on both the 1st and 2d amendment. You are quite amazing.
Only under the most limited circumstances, when weighing the constitutional rights of both parties.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#284 Jan 16, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you don't have a clue.
Further, "interpretation" is not the equivalent of judicial activism, i.e., legislating from the bench.
Sorry to quash your progressive dream.
One person's interpretation is another's activism. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.

And I will assume at this point that your avoidance and deflection regarding how you intend to "assert your right to bear arms" in a court proceeding is your tacit admission that you have no earthly idea.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#285 Jan 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Call it what ever you want. The latest poll shows that 55% of the people favor stricter gun control laws. Ranking on the level of importance is irrelevant.
Because "bad news" is what people think of when you ask them that intentionally vague question. I'll bet if you asked "Do you want to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding people, you'd get a far different answer. On the other hand, if you asked, "Do you want to remove guns from the severely mentally ill and criminal?" It would be over 99%'yes'.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#286 Jan 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
One person's interpretation is another's activism. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.
And I will assume at this point that your avoidance and deflection regarding how you intend to "assert your right to bear arms" in a court proceeding is your tacit admission that you have no earthly idea.
Just as Liberty University and the other 40+ lawsuits filed against Obamacare's unconstitutional mandate had no idea.

/s

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Group raising funds to set up kosher pantry at ... 3 min Pope Che Reagan C... 8
Deal with the Devil 5 min Pope Che Reagan C... 9
Man shot near Ferguson protest….. 6 min free pizza 4 U 195
TRUMP is going to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 172
Jimmy Carter! Wow, he is a Democratic Christia... 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 8
Poll Who Do You Support For President 2 hr Ten pounds of bacon 410
News Supporters of Ohio charter-school reforms urge ... 2 hr Doc 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages