D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed pro...

D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters'

There are 648 comments on the Examiner.com story from May 11, 2013, titled D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters'. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

Armed protesters who plan to march across the Arlington Memorial Bridge into Washington, D.C. on July 4 will have a special greeting committee awaiting them on the other side.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Aug 10

Bethesda, MD

#124 May 13, 2013
Tory II wrote:
92<quoted text>The law requires all communists to be sodomized monthly. "The law is the law."
And this, Folks, is the conservative version of "I want to respond,but i cant think of anything to say"

Genius

Since: Aug 10

Bethesda, MD

#125 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, traitor-troll:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
The USURPreme Kourt CANNOT invalidate the Constitution - THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?
Take a hike, you vile treasonous troll.
Why do you keep pasting this drivel as if it means anything? Its clear your just copying from a nutter blog. why are you afraid to give us the link?

Try college, then come talk to me

Since: Aug 10

Bethesda, MD

#126 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."--Jesus Christ, John 14:6
YEah, jesus loved guns
Solid

Lexington, KY

#127 May 13, 2013
mhmdAbn wrote:
((( O people Say No God But Allah, Achieve Eternal Salvation )))
" Laa illaha illa lah ." (There is none worthy of worship except Allah.)
( I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger )
( Introduction to Islam )
hey Allah is gone I wiped my butt and flushed Allah down the drain
Get Out

Jacksonville, NC

#128 May 13, 2013
Illegal aliens march on DC demanding citizenship and arenít arrested or deported. Where was the Police Chief then when they broke the LAW? All of the DC LEOís need to call in sick that day.
mike

Cookeville, TN

#129 May 13, 2013
Get Out wrote:
Illegal aliens march on DC demanding citizenship and arenít arrested or deported. Where was the Police Chief then when they broke the LAW? All of the DC LEOís need to call in sick that day.
They dont like TORY who claims he will threaten the cops with violence because he thinks it the american way.
mike

Cookeville, TN

#130 May 13, 2013
Tory II wrote:
94<quoted text>It was unConstitutional and probably a Jim Crow law.
Only communists should be forced to obey Jim Crow laws.
You have any idea of what JIM CROW IS-no i doubt it because they no longer exist-overturned by the supreme court in the 50s and 60s so chump drop the act..
mike

Cookeville, TN

#131 May 13, 2013
It is illegal to carry a firearm in DC and only legal if you have a permit.
BilboBaggins

El Centro, CA

#132 May 13, 2013
This is what guns are for .

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#133 May 13, 2013
These are the same rules for OCCUPATION currently camping at the WH with his blessing.
Duh

Bridgeville, PA

#134 May 13, 2013
Tory II wrote:
100<quoted text>The SCOTUS is wrong. The single sentence of the 2nd amendment is easy to understand.
http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=140 48
The Constitution Is NOT the Bible
Posted on 2 April 2012 by Kenneth Quinnell
One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of ďoriginialismĒ as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of ďWell, the founding fathers never expectedÖĒ followed by the personís preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claim 1) havenít read the Constitution, 2) havenít read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) havenít read any of the founding fathersí writings about these topics.
As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? Itís not relevant for three reasons:
1. The law is not what they said, itís only what they passed
2. They are dead and didnít live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them
3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral
That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They werenít. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy ó landowners ó should have the right to vote. They were not saints.
Duh

Bridgeville, PA

#135 May 13, 2013
While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. Thatís why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what weíve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is an unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things arenít true, but you canít find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, itís not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. Itís filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal governmentís power to deal with most issues.
Beach Pig

Statham, GA

#136 May 13, 2013
Duh wrote:
While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. Thatís why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what weíve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is an unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things arenít true, but you canít find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, itís not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. Itís filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal governmentís power to deal with most issues.
Those were both very good posts, thoughtful and well worded.
mike

Cookeville, TN

#137 May 13, 2013
RayOne wrote:
These are the same rules for OCCUPATION currently camping at the WH with his blessing.
OK GENIUS let put out some facts you may have overlooked.You wanna march fine wanna shout yoyrself hoarse fine bur say a few looneys decide they want to play intimadate the fuzz unslinging their guns-what happens the cops arrest them and if you rednecks want to start shooting what happens?You would look bad as people would say they cant talk disagree or do anything withot pulling out a weapon.And what of those who have no dog in your fight who gets the blame for them being killed or hurt-the blame would be the NRA whether they had anyhting to do with the march.You talk about an army of occupation but it sounds like the marchers will be doing the occupying and marching on the WH with the intent of commiting mayhem well it just wont go over well with the public.Make excuses i know you will but saying you support armed rebellion is stupid.
mike

Cookeville, TN

#138 May 13, 2013
That is wrote:
<quoted text>
why this freak calls everybody communists. He believe this is true and is hoping for some action.
He wouldnt know what a communist was if JOE STALIN was sittng next to him..

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#139 May 13, 2013
FFS- wrote:
<quoted text>And this, Folks, is the conservative version of "I want to respond,but i cant think of anything to say"
Genius
No, more like your response is just mindless drool spewed forth by a kool-aid drinking traitor-troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#140 May 13, 2013
Duh wrote:
While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. Thatís why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what weíve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is an unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things arenít true, but you canít find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, itís not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. Itís filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal governmentís power to deal with most issues.
Not quite, drooling traitor-troll:

"The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; "to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate." A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.

"An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.

"We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#141 May 13, 2013
Duh wrote:
While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. Thatís why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what weíve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is an unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things arenít true, but you canít find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, itís not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. Itís filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal governmentís power to deal with most issues.
"The national government is one of ENUMERATED powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than THOSE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF...."

"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.

"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#142 May 13, 2013
Duh wrote:
<quoted text> http://quinnell.us/sspb/...
The Constitution Is NOT the Bible
Posted on 2 April 2012 by Kenneth Quinnell
One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of ďoriginialismĒ as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of ďWell, the founding fathers never expectedÖĒ followed by the personís preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claim 1) havenít read the Constitution, 2) havenít read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) havenít read any of the founding fathersí writings about these topics.
As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? Itís not relevant for three reasons:
1. The law is not what they said, itís only what they passed
2. They are dead and didnít live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them
3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral
That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They werenít. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy ó landowners ó should have the right to vote. They were not saints.
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#143 May 13, 2013
Duh wrote:
While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. Thatís why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what weíve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is an unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things arenít true, but you canít find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, itís not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. Itís filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal governmentís power to deal with most issues.
Scalia: Constitution is not a living document

NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.Ė U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution is not a living document and should not be rewritten each year by the unelected justices of the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia delivered an address titled ďOn Interpreting the ConstitutionĒ at Iona College in New Rochelle, where he is the Jack Rudin and John G. Driscoll distinguished visiting professor for the spring semester. The Jan. 23 lecture was attended by 700 students, faculty and alumni, as well as officials from New Rochelle and Westchester County....
http://catholicreview.org/article/play/arts/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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lots of talk, little action in Congress after s... 55 min Sandra 86
News Cities and states take the lead on banning bump... 2 hr Get Out 312
News Another School Shooting-But Who's Counting? 21 hr javawhey 6
News Jimmy Kimmel Blames Trump, GOP After School Sho... Fri FormerParatrooper 1
News Dead Not Counted Before Liberals Started Lying ... Fri Shelly Bl 1
News Remington seeks to restructure debt so it can o... Feb 12 sick of winning 1
News After Las Vegas massacre, Congress has failed t... Feb 12 Watchdog 1
More from around the web