[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership? Source: The Shooters Log URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership Published: Nov 15, 2015 Author: Dave Dolbee Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don Keywords: None Views: 25126 Comments: 205 Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership? By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning. During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership. The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn. Second Amendment Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national? Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well. On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword. Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA. A Double-Edged Sword… While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar. However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights. In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way. You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken. I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end? Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section. Share This! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-48) not displayed.       .       .       . #49. To: tpaine, Roscoe (#36) (Edited) I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. "[B]ecause SCOTUS opinions only apply to the case at issue," McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Otis McDonald and his fellow petitioners Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson. A SCOTUS case with tpaine as a named party has not yet been decided. Which is fortunate for you as McDonald, which does not apply to you, states: McDonald slip op at 39-40: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   2:07:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: nolu chan (#49) They never read. Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   3:17:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: nolu chan (#48) Roscoe (the cretin) agrees with misterwhite that some States have the power to prohibit arms, and pretends that it's a federalist position. But it makes no real difference, because SCOTUS opinions only apply to the case at issue. -- SCOTUS opinions do not change the constitution.. Nolu --- I wonder what all the fuss has been about. You barracks house lawyer types have always raised a fuss about precedents. -- Precedence is useful to lazy judges, etc, -- but it doesn't change our law of the land, - our Constitution.. What say you, nolu chan?? I used to believe that the RKBA was an individual right, possessed by the British subjects of the colonies, which they retained after the Declaration, and after the Articles, and which they explicitly refused to delegate to the Federal government of limited powers which they created pursuant to the Constitution which they ratified. ---- The Federal government was prohibited from infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. ----- As for state constitutions, what they can do is determined by their provisions. They must not be contrary to the Federal Constitution and laws. Then we agree on the basics about our 2nd, and how States must conform to it, --- and that misterwhite/roscoe are wrong in their contention that some States can prohibit arms.. Thanks.. Although your sarcasm about SCOTUS opinions is, as usual, idiotic... tpaine  posted on  2015-11-17   6:51:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: nolu chan (#49) (Edited) [June 28, 2010] Justice Thomas , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment “fully applicable to the States.” Ante , at 1. I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment ’s text and history. Nolu attempts a sarcastic/humerous reply, -- and fails; --- [B]ecause SCOTUS opinions only apply to the case at issue," McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Otis McDonald and his fellow petitioners Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson. ---- A SCOTUS case with tpaine as a named party has not yet been decided. --- Which is fortunate for you as McDonald, which does not apply to you, states: The McDonald opinion applies to the case at issue, -- while reaffirming that the 2nd applies to the States.. McDonald slip op at 39-40: --- It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. Yep, -- the above 'slip opinion' is a perfect example of an erroneous SCOTUS 'ruling' that can safely be ignored, as it only applies to this case and to Heller, -- it does NOT change our constitutional rights to arms, -- and those that use this opinion to so 'regulate' (infringe) do so at their own peril.. They are constitutional scofflaws.. tpaine  posted on  2015-11-17   7:16:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, roscoe, Y'ALL (#52) libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=43037 What is a disarmist? tpaine  posted on  2015-11-17   7:58:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: misterwhite (#39) Yep. And DCW cheered, totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms. OK liar. Link or stfu Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   10:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: tpaine (#51) As for state constitutions, what they can do is determined by their provisions. They must not be contrary to the Federal Constitution and laws. Then we agree on the basics about our 2nd, and how States must conform to it, --- and that misterwhite/roscoe are wrong in their contention that some States can prohibit arms.. No. Your delusional brainfarts do not transform what I said into something you imagine. The text of the 2nd Amendment does not define what the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is. The authors considered it self-explanatory. They could not have reasonably foreseen the meaningless interpretations to be invented by delusional bloggers of the future. Thanks.. Although your sarcasm about SCOTUS opinions is, as usual, idiotic... I am so sorry if agreeing with your delusional opinions produces results which even you must admit are idiotic. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   12:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: tpaine (#52) June 28, 2010] Justice Thomas , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment “fully applicable to the States.” Ante , at 1. I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment ’s text and history. Of course, the majority opinion of the court does not apply to anyone outside of the case at hand, and no concurring opinion has ever applied to anyone at all, not even the person writing it. McDonald slip op at 39-40: --- It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. Yep, -- the above 'slip opinion' is a perfect example of an erroneous SCOTUS 'ruling' that can safely be ignored, as it only applies to this case and to Heller, -- it does NOT change our constitutional rights to arms, -- and those that use this opinion to so 'regulate' (infringe) do so at their own peril.. They are constitutional scofflaws.. That's why a little known, secret codicil of the Constitution grants to the tpaine Court of the Imagination, the infinite wisdom, and the almighty power, to point out the errors of the U.S. Supreme Court, dismiss offending opinions, and issue correct opinions. It would be a serious concern, but no actual cases, with real parties, are argued at the tpaine Court of the Imagination, and its opinions apply to nobody, not even tpaine. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   12:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: Roscoe (#50) They never read. And they never identify their superior expert source. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   13:05:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#39) Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling). NYSRPA v Cuomo, WDNY 1:13-cv-00291-WMS, Doc 140, OPINION AND ORDER (12/31/13) At 5: In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny. As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and largecapacity magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest. Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 19: In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 21: McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   13:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: nolu chan (#56) "I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history." --Justice Thomas Clarence's use of a 14th Amendment "privileges and immunities" wildcard to judicially alter the original intent of 2nd Amendment is functionally equivalent to the use of a "substantive due process" by the Court. It's pretty much the opposite of straightforward. Even Justice Scalia, who has himself abandoned original intent for substantive due process and judicial legislation, derided the privileges and immunities dodge, stating, "What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence." Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   13:21:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: nolu chan (#58) "Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense." So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-17   13:23:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#58) NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 19: In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. True that. But the codification contained little codification. As the 2nd Circuit noted: Aside from these broad guidelines, Heller offered little guidance for resolving future Second Amendment challenges. The Court did imply that such challenges are subject to one of “the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,” though it declined to say which, accepting that many applications of the Second Amendment would remain “in doubt.” In other words, federal district court judges are now empowered to read their own policy preferences into the new 2nd Amendment at will and ad hoc. How wonderful. /sarcasm Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   13:31:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: misterwhite (#60) So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? tpaine Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   13:33:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: nolu chan (#57) And they never identify their superior expert source. What kind of source do you need? I have stated firmly that I despise what the courts have done, they have made a mockery of what God given inalienable rights means. If you refuse to believe that, that's on you sport. Meanwhile, I spit on all those who argue about the curtain colors on the titanic. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   13:53:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: misterwhite (#60) So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons. The militia and the military are two different things. The right to keep and bear arms is the common law right that the people brought with them when the left colonial status behind and when they set up their constitutional form of government. With the Second Amendment, the people did not give a definition of it, but they provided their rationale for prohibiting the Federal government from infringing upon it. Determine what the term "right to keep and bear arms" meant in 1776 or 1789, and that is the right that is referred to and protected. It was referred to in a context that included a weak Federal government and a very small standing army which would be no match for the state militias. That context no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the civil war. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:01:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: nolu chan (#64) So, because the federal government has grabbed, or simply assumed so much power, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid? Nice twofer you have going on. You must not have kids, or, you have a cushy government job lined up for them. So maybe you can tell me, since MsWhite refuses to.... What inalienable rights do we have? What can the government not regulate into irrelevancy? The way it is now, people need permission from the government for pretty much everything. Judging by how much you enjoy posting the manure excuses made up by this same government for this, maybe you will answer. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:14:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Dead Culture Watch (#63) What kind of source do you need? I do not need a source. I usually provide one. You and your ilk need some source of legal authority if you expect your legal arguments to be taken seriously. A Court opinion would be nice. A legal text by a recognized legal expert would be good. The brainfart of an anonymous source, not so good. I have stated firmly that I despise what the courts have done, they have made a mockery of what God given inalienable rights means. Indeed, legally there are no God-given inalienable rights, at least not in the United States. The inalienable God-given right to life? Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. By the 5th Amendment, the people clearly recognized the power of the government to enforce the death penalty, i.e., to execute, to terminate the supposedly inalienable God-given right to life. The inalienable God-given right to liberty? By Amendment 5 , the people explicitly recognized the power of the government to deprive one of the supposedly inalienable right to life or liberty, as long as due process was provided. The inalienable God-given right to the pursuit of happiness By Amendment 5 , the people explicitly recognized the power of the government to deprive one of the supposedly inalienable right to life, terminating the ability of the dearly departed to pursue the supposedly inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, at least within this mortal coil. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:18:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: nolu chan (#66) recognized the power of the government to deprive one of the supposedly inalienable right to life or liberty, as long as due process was provided. Due process? Wow, are you behind the times. Don't you know the president can drop a drone on you on his say so? Nice fail Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:25:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: nolu chan (#66) nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Kelo..... I guess it all depends on what 'public' means... At one time, we laughed when a degenerate said 'it depends on what the meaning of is, is'... Now, people like you don't bat an eye saying the same thing. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:30:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Dead Culture Watch (#65) So, because the federal government has grabbed, or simply assumed so much power, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid? Quite the contrary. The RKBA is the same now as in 1776 or 1789, and just as valid. It has never been what delusional wingnuts proclaim it to be. At the time the Second Amendment was enacted, the state militias could have overwhelmed the deliberately small standing Federal army. The militias can no longer overwhelm the standing Federal army. The organized state militia were co-opted to the National Guard. The standing regular army is immense compared to the Founding and Framing era. The Federal army has changed, not the RKBA. The people still have the same right to keep and bear arms. So armed, they cannot overwhelm, or compete, with the full might of the Federal standing army. Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12 provided that the Congress had the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." That was supposed to use the power of the purse to restrain the Federal government from creating a huge standing army. It appears it failed. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:34:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: Dead Culture Watch (#67) Don't you know the president can drop a drone on you on his say so? Lawfully? No. Which is wy you did not provide any source, as usual. Fail. I know presidents can violate the law. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:36:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: Dead Culture Watch (#68) nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right? Fail. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:41:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: nolu chan (#70) So, you believe Obomber is in jail for murder? Why not? Why is John Corzine not in Jail? Or anyone from any major bank who have pled guilty to money laundering for drug cartels? Your belief that 'law' means any friggen thing is both sad and funny at same time. The government and those connected can do any damn thing they want, and since we have no right to keep and bear arms, we just take it up the ass. Meanwhile, we can expect more copy/paste of the drapery from you. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:46:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Dead Culture Watch (#72) So, you believe Obomber is in jail for murder? Why not? Why is John Corzine not in Jail? Or anyone from any major bank who have pled guilty to money laundering for drug cartels? So, you believe Obama and Corzine have been tried and convicted? What major banker was charged and prosecuted? Fail. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   15:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: nolu chan (#71) Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right? I quoted your post. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Perhaps if you didn't want it included, you could reduce the amount of spam in your copy/paste jobs. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:57:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: nolu chan (#73) So, you believe Obama and Corzine have been tried and convicted? What major banker was charged and prosecuted? Fail. No, it illustrates my point precisely. The law is a joke if not enforced. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   15:58:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: nolu chan (#73) What major banker was charged and prosecuted? None, the banks themselves were fined after being found guilty. NO ONE EVER WENT TO JAIL. Even though major laws were broken. It wasn't anyone apparently in the banks who did it. It just happened all by itself, bad bank!! No soup for you! Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   16:01:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: Dead Culture Watch (#68) I guess it all depends on what 'public' means... From the beginning. Grist mill. Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   16:01:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: Roscoe (#77) Hey Monica! Long time no smell! Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   16:01:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: Dead Culture Watch (#78) Cleaned your penis pump lately? Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   16:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: nolu chan (#71) Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right? He thinks he is God. "It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   16:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Roscoe (#80) Lol, using my joke? What are you, ten? (The old 'I know u are, but what am I?) Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   16:11:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: Dead Culture Watch (#81) Now you're pretending you were just joking about your penis pump obsession? Grist mills. Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   16:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: Roscoe (#80) He thinks he is God I do have a better opinion of myself than you do, for sure. Maybe if you weren't such a worm of a 'man', you might also think better of yourself. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   16:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: Dead Culture Watch (#83) Dunning-Kruger Watch Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-17   16:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: Dead Culture Watch (#74) Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right? I quoted your post. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Perhaps if you didn't want it included, you could reduce the amount of spam in your copy/paste jobs. I know it is in the 5th Amendment which I quoted. If your point is not that it is an inalienable God-given right, what is your point other than to change the subject? You have yet to give an example of any inalienable God-given right that is recognized as such pursuant to United States law. It has to be embarrassing that you can't claim just one that does not look ridiculous. We have done life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The original version of that was life, liberty and property. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   16:18:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: nolu chan (#85) And some think it was changed because of slavery. So what. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17   16:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Dead Culture Watch (#75) No, it illustrates my point precisely. The law is a joke if not enforced. You are not the President. The law is no joke if you violate it. Fail. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   16:19:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: nolu chan (#70) I know presidents can violate the law. Yes, they can under the protection clause provided for them called "diplomatic immunity" but not under color of state or federal law like what we witnessed during the Clinton administration with the President assaulting four women including Paula Jones. goldilucky  posted on  2015-11-17   16:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Dead Culture Watch (#86) And some think it was changed because of slavery. So what. Are you claiming an inalienable God-given right to property? Or have you given up trying to provide an example of such inalienable God-given rights recognized by United States law? Are you just babbling? You brought up property as an example of something or other in a discussion of your supposed inalienable God-given rights. nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17   16:23:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (90 - 205) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com