What the 2012 election taught us

Nov 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Washington Post

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Comments (Page 352)

Showing posts 7,021 - 7,040 of10,324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7701
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eric Gustafson wrote:
I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.
It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.
You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?
<quoted text>
new liberal thinking.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7702
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eric Gustafson wrote:
I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.
It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.
You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?
<quoted text>
all your trying to is justify the Failed SCOTUS liberal thinking that has failed US Society.

In Haynes v. U.S.(1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon."

The Court concluded:

•We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

•If mandatory gun registration can't be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother?

•The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration

•What Im reading here is that any known felon would not have to register a weapon because its a violation of his 5th amendment. you figure out the rest for yourself.
The second kicker is that the new laws now protect the felon from registry and of course will have little to no effect on crime.


FELONS DONT HAVE TO REGISTER KIDS- YOU DO!

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politic...

Here this article makes a good point about Haynes vs United States and the issue with convicts and the direction this New Left with their moderen Liberala are taking this country.

Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law

Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-...
1 post removed
truman

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7704
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
He wants to register them in the Take The Country The White Man Built Away From The White Man party.
And, they'll have no problem joining that party.
Republican RINOs are ignorant fools to think they can get any of that vote. The Democrats and all that they appeal to are racists. It's only us that adhere to the philosophy that a person is only what they do. They can only think in terms of race... like Hitler, for one example of a type mentality similar to them.
A ham handed Hitler analogy.
You truly are a dimwit spoon fed on Fox Mind Poison arent you?
truman

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7705
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20
When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949
The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.
For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.
That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.
Well,you see a RATIONAL person could'nt forget.
However if you are a 2013 brand 'Conservative'you can simply ignore Objective Reality and re-write history and pretend ALL our problems started in January 2009.....
Republicans are genetically incapable of accepting responsibilty or owning ANY negative consquences for which their alde-pated idealogy is responsible ... which is why their default mode is blanket denial and point the finger elsewhere.... ANYWHERE else.
Stoneman

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7706
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Al "Sex Poodle" Gore goes on Letterman, etc. to sell his worthless book. The fawning leftist show hosts delicately ask about how such a brilliant priest of the Global Warming Religion can justify such an apparent hypocrisy, selling his kooky Socialist/Democrat propaganda TV station to an oil-based country. How can he do this? Isn't oil (and rich, white, bald Conservative men) EVIL?

His answer: "I disagree with the assessment". End of discussion.

Oh. Okay. That should do it.

Explains how leftists can consider Princess Hillary to be a viable Secretary of State, responsible for defending the US in foriegn affairs, while remaining married to a man that humiliated her repeatedly by having his genitalia sucked and ejaculating in the face of a 20-year-old employee.

Leftists are clueless.
1 post removed

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7708
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated
FIFTH AMENDMENT.

You understand nothing.

You have a rant and you aren't going to allow facts to stand in your way.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7709
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling
... never interrupt a tea bagger on a rant...

Tell us about the black UN hellycopters, PA!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7710
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>all your trying to is justify the Failed SCOTUS liberal thinking that has failed US Society.
In Haynes v. U.S.(1968),
FIFTH AMENDMENT.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7711
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.
Fifth Amendment.

This did not give felons license to own guns.

You stupid dolt.

Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 corrected the "loophole" in the Haynes case, and Title II was subsequently UPHELD by SCOTUS in the FREED case.

I've reminded you of this three times.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7712
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Stoneman wrote:
Al "Sex Poodle" Gore goes on Letterman, etc. to sell his worthless book.
Gore will make more on his "worthless" book than you will make in your entire worthless life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7713
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
FIFTH AMENDMENT.
You understand nothing.
You have a rant and you aren't going to allow facts to stand in your way.
facts stand it was about Gun Registration of the rights of a Convict vs law abiding citizen which is the moderen Liberals are the reason why today the convicts & the criminals are walking the street with guns especially in chicago and by the Liberals on the SCOTUS using 5th admendment was a copout since the Liberals as FDR call them were responsible for the National Firearms Act of 1934 and made more sense than the liberals on the SCOTUS in 1968 besides convicts & criminals cant be forced to register their assault weapons thanks to the liberals.

now New York State Ban on assault rifles and clips is in trouble because of the Liberals descision and language used in Haynes vs United States.

Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law

"A number of constitutional rights were just tossed aside here," Tresmond said on Wednesday.

Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.

Tresmond said the law also violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on the taking of private property by the government. The law requires people who own high-capacity magazines to either sell them or surrender them to the state.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7714
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifth Amendment.
This did not give felons license to own guns.
You stupid dolt.
Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 corrected the "loophole" in the Haynes case, and Title II was subsequently UPHELD by SCOTUS in the FREED case.
I've reminded you of this three times.
yes it did stupid dolt read the case of Haynes vs United States and yes the loophole & the legal precedent established in Haynes vs United States still stands and is law of the land for whole US.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7715
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
... never interrupt a tea bagger on a rant...
Tell us about the black UN hellycopters, PA!
nope not a tea bagger on a rant, a registered Democrat.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7716
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
facts stand it was about Gun Registration of the rights
Fifth Amendment.

That is what the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES says.

PS: as I have pointed out to you five times: the "loophole" was fixed in the revision in 1968.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7717
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>yes it did stupid dolt read the case of Haynes vs United States and yes the loophole & the legal precedent established in Haynes vs United States still stands and is law of the land for whole US.
You stupid dolt:

Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968.

The whole of the US.

PS: Upheld, SCOTUS.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7718
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
nope not a tea bagger on a rant, a registered Democrat.
You can register anyway you like.

There is no test, tea bagger.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7719
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
the National Firearms Act of 1934 ...
Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7720
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law
Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason.

Do you think the speed limit violates your constitutional rights to drive at 150 MPH?

File a suit.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7721
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.
Felons are not forced to incriminate themselves anymore by registering.

Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968.

Even though you are a felon, honey, you can register your stolen hand gun.

Call me if you have any problems and I'll represent you for free...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7722
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Tresmond said the law also violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on the taking of private property by the government. The law requires people who own high-capacity magazines to either sell them
Selling them would not be taking.

And it would not be unlawful if states made them illegal to possess... three steps away from a persons residence. Or to restrict the number of rounds in a magazine, e.g.: nine rounds, legal, ten rounds... felony.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,021 - 7,040 of10,324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

38 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min American Lady 240,221
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 6 min Terra Firma 50,787
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Torn Sak 1,073,060
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min American Lady 144,967
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 12 min WasteWater 1,879
Morale gap among LGBT federal workers persists 12 min Rainbow Kid 16
What the military did while Benghazi post burned 14 min Le Jimbo 64
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••