Posts for: PalePictures
Apr 14, 2017 10:35:57 #
Frosty wrote:
You like the writings of our founding fathers? Ho... (show quote)
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
And this is what I mean by constitutionalist. There has been a constant assault on the founders intent via the judiciary.
States have the right to make gun laws for now, they can only ban them based on where you are and via permitting.
Any one who knows history cannot deny the founders intent on guns....See prior post.
Apr 14, 2017 10:24:58 #
Both the government and the people have the right of gun ownership.
"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
and this is what I mean by constitutionalist....
"Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and m*****a. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression."
"The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."
The founders were very smart and feared their on government as much as a foreign government. Rightly so.... George was not so benevolent in the U.S. at the time.
The founders intent was clear. Their intent has been upheld by the courts.(So far)
I assure you the founders did not have Duck hunting in mind when they wrote the second amendment.
The price of liberty is hard for many people to swallow.
Many in this world have some reason to effect some liberty that does not pertain to themselves.
"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
and this is what I mean by constitutionalist....
"Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and m*****a. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression."
"The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."
The founders were very smart and feared their on government as much as a foreign government. Rightly so.... George was not so benevolent in the U.S. at the time.
The founders intent was clear. Their intent has been upheld by the courts.(So far)
I assure you the founders did not have Duck hunting in mind when they wrote the second amendment.
The price of liberty is hard for many people to swallow.
Many in this world have some reason to effect some liberty that does not pertain to themselves.
Apr 14, 2017 10:22:05 #
ken hubert wrote:
You're trying to jump around. You have yet to respond about the Founding Fathers writings on guns. Quit evading like a Libtard and respond.
He's a moron.
He uses the fact that the original constitution has been changed via amendments and tries to justify prohibiting gun ownership.
Bait and switch.
He ignored my arguments of the federalist papers altogether.
It was clear what the founders intent was on gun ownership....Both federalist and non federalist.
There was never a debate on the populous owning guns. Only whether it would be effective at controlling our on government.
In Liberal world there are no sacred rights except there right to free speech when it doesn't infringe on their free speech.
There is no freedom of religion except when it is the free religion that they choose.
Gorsuch made the comment that if you agree on all your decisions you're likely not a good judge.
Liberty can be hard for some to swallow....Especially a modern day liberal.
How many judges sit on the bench is a moot point.
No one disagrees that the constitution has been amended.
No one disagrees that Judges should apply the rule of law according to those amendments.
When a conservative says the constitution is not a living document he means it is not open to wild interpretation outside of the intent.
When a liberal says the constitution is a living document he means to stretch laws beyond their original intent using FEELINGS.
It effectively becomes "Legislating from the bench" when you go outside original intent.
Gorsuch used the rule of law on the trucker case. He likely did not like the outcome but that is what the law is....Not that it did not have a bad result.
Their was simply no justification for not confirming Gorsuch except for retaliation and liberal ideology.
Iowa has just passed legislation to expand gun owner rights!
http://www.iowagunowners.org/stand-your-ground-legislation-signed-into-law/
Apr 13, 2017 11:14:04 #
Wenonah wrote:
Along those same lines, you don't have the right to drive a car. It is a privilege that can be taken away by the state.
You do have the right to own(buy) a car....Just not drive it....
The government has no more right to compel you to buy insurance than it does to compel you to buy a car.
Welcome to the ACA...
Apr 13, 2017 11:08:33 #
ken hubert wrote:
As usual you are ignorant. What better source then... (show quote)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
JAMES MADISON
The founders intent was quite clear....
Apr 13, 2017 01:18:12 #
btbg wrote:
You are absolutely correct that there are many are... (show quote)
There is one problem with your logic with the TSA.
You voluntarily choose to fly. You can walk away from security anytime you want and not board a plane. You voluntarily give up your right when you choose to fly.
I would like to see each airline effect it's on security and not have the government involved, but it is not unreasonable to have the TSA do so.(Search you)
A free market solution would likely work where each airline has it's on security. You can then choose to fly on the airline that best makes you feel secure.
I doubt much would change if that happened. I would prefer to fly airlines that were more safe.... if Airlines did do their security.
You could use the same logic for entering a courthouse with a gun. Most all courthouses require a search(Metal wand) to enter.
Apr 13, 2017 01:00:23 #
btbg wrote:
You are absolutely correct that there are many are... (show quote)
Well put.
You are correct on all points.
Apr 13, 2017 00:57:10 #
Frosty wrote:
I think it is you that needs to do some research a... (show quote)
He didn't divert anything.
Both the government and the people have the right to have weapons.
"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
and this is what I mean by constitutionalist....
"Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and m*****a. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression."
"The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."
The founders were very smart and feared their own government as much as a foreign government. Rightly so.... George was not so benevolent in the U.S. at the time.
The founders intent was clear. Their intent has been upheld by the courts.(So far)
I assure you the founders did not have Duck hunting in mind when they wrote the second amendment.
The price of liberty is hard for many people to swallow.
Many in this world have some reason to effect some liberty that does not pertain to themselves.
Apr 11, 2017 18:54:11 #
Very difficult not to admire Gorsuch no matter which side of the isle you are on.
He was unanimously confirmed to the lower court.
Democrats lost in multiple ways with the attempted filibuster.
I hope to see more constitutionalist judges approved in the next few years.
"Justice is the handmaiden of law."
Judge Roy Bean
He was unanimously confirmed to the lower court.
Democrats lost in multiple ways with the attempted filibuster.
I hope to see more constitutionalist judges approved in the next few years.
"Justice is the handmaiden of law."
Judge Roy Bean
Apr 9, 2017 13:10:33 #
Good article.
"Government do not become tyrannies through sudden usurpations but by gradual encroachment"
Paraphrased James Madison..
"Government do not become tyrannies through sudden usurpations but by gradual encroachment"
Paraphrased James Madison..
Apr 9, 2017 13:05:12 #
The more things change the more they stay the same.....
From 1977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
From 1977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
Apr 6, 2017 13:48:29 #
"It is a common belief that people get rich by stealing in prison.... and Harvard Business school."
Apr 5, 2017 11:05:59 #
FrumCA wrote:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/03/to-fix-health-care-congress-must-reverse-costly-regulations/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpZMlpqWXhabVExWVdFeiIsInQiOiJETWtsM3BaMUNmRmRRd2F4VWhrMWJ6akt2UUorQ0tpOFZMVnhCdGRLRVRYQU1sNHZjZDRiV2tGd0YzNW4rR1ZcL0M2WVl0cW5RQndwb0QxMkpPRnNjWkVDc0ZxVTNFeXpIVnY0Z2IralNWeFJ1a0Rvdnd1OHZcL1wvNU5SUUVMemlBaiJ9
I agree,
Tort reform as well.
A gynecologist and neuro surgeon can pay a million dollars a year in mal practice insurance.
There is no reason why a man who operates on a brain and spends half of his life studying to do so should have to pay(like they do) when something goes wrong.
Same for a gynecologist.
A friend of mine who was a gynecologist who lived in Memphis was involved in a case( till his death) over malpractice. The case made him want to leave the field.
The whole situation was really sad. He spent his life delivering new life.
Sadly many people can only see the perceive benefits of regulation and cannot comprehend the cost of it.
Great write up by Sen Mike Lee.
Wish we had more Senators like him.
Apr 4, 2017 20:48:33 #
sb wrote:
All the nonsense about whether - and how - to repe... (show quote)
(Group 1) of 30 people with cancer who smoked their whole life stand to your left
(Group 2) of 30 middle class people who never smoked and are healthy stand to your right.
Group 1 has no insurance. They never worked or quit work or wh**ever.
Group 2 has insurance they worked.
A group of 10 judges stand before you.
These judges are divided in half.
Half of the Judges will force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of force)
The other half will not force group 2 to pay for group 1 insurance. (The judges of morality)
The judges inform you that forcing group 2 to pay for group 1 will raise the cost of group 2 insurance.
Which half of the judges will you allow to have power?
You see...The fundament concept of Christianity is making individual moral choices. You have free will.
By selecting the Judges of force you are in fact using an immoral means to achieve a perceived moral ends.
This concept is foreign to the modern left.
The lefts concept of morality is to obscure force by using a collective....aka congress.
There is not one individual that I know that would force a rich man to pay for a poor woman. when the individuals are not obscured by a collective.
Could you find someone on the street that is poor and force another person on the street that is rich to pay for them...and if they don't imprison them?
How can you v**e for a collective to do what you as an individual cannot do and call that morality?
I love the people who use the Royal "WE". Those people are the very people that depend on the "WE" which usually means someone else must pay for them.
Whenever a service in our society is funded by government, commercial institutions will always extract as much funding as they can get.
ACA did just that. Once the funding happened the regulator of cost was removed.
It is a simple fact that when a service is less affordable by some it drives down the cost and produces more options.
You inject funds and the cost will rise.
This is what happened with college education as well. You make student loans easy to get the universities suck that (Seemingly) free money out of the students.
The debt attributed to the "Right of an Education" works exactly as the ACA. Student get degrees in fields where the amount they have borrowed can never be paid back. Many students will be in servitude though debt to our government backed student loans for the rest of their life.(Or much of it.)
Bankruptcy cannot even remove student loan debt.
The next time you think that someone else ought to pay for someone else's health insurance. Go buy yourself a gun and go to your neighbors house that has money, Declare yourself Robin hood, and go steal the guys money and drop it off at the nearest cancer center. Let me know if you feel good about yourself after you do that.
Apr 3, 2017 15:37:22 #
hondo812 wrote:
I could be missing something here on the "threat". "Seen as a threat by the military" is not the same as a "threat to the military". My guess is that the number one threat associated with actual c*****e c****e is population movement. Think of the mass migration of Dust Bowl era families to California. Now take that to a larger scale......Northern Africa and the Middle East to a more temperate Europe?
Looks like that migration is already happening without G****l w*****g.
Perhaps you are right, If you believe the article.
Sometimes people say thing and it is repeated three time and it becomes a t***h.
You can get 97% of scientist to agree...You just can't figure out exactly what they agree on.
I have a friend that is a Colonel with a bronze start from Afghanistan.
If you told him Global warning was a threat to our military, he would laugh so hard he would not be able to sit down.
I guess I try to keep things in perspective.
Rabid coons are a threat to our military, Disease is a threat to our military. Trench foot is a threat to our military......
The cost of Trench foot is a pair of dry sox....and keeping your feet out of water.
The real threat to our military is another stronger military willing and ready to engage you, or perhaps one that will engage you when they choose.
Just trying to keep things real hear.
There are bigger problems to fight than something we can likely do nothing about.