United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Mother, Air Force Vet Kidnapped, Sent to Rikers for Traveling in NY with Her Legal Texas Handgun
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mo ... veling-ny-legal-texas-handgun/
Published: Nov 26, 2017
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2017-11-26 12:46:53 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9032
Comments: 122
Robinson had harmed no one, had not taken anyone’s property and was merely traveling peacefully in her car when she was kidnapped by police and thrown into Riker’s Island at the Rose M. Singer Center with violent armed robbers and murderers. Robinson was driving from Texas to New York to bring her two children to spend some time with their father when she was arrested by the NYPD in the Bronx and charged with “265.03 FC (CRIM POSS WEAPON-2ND DEGREE C Felony)” for having her legally purchased and licensed handgun in her glovebox. Robinson, who spent five years on active duty, had secret military clearances and also has her active and valid Texas License to Carry. According to Federal law, an individual is not restricted from transporting legally acquired firearms across state lines for lawful purposes except those explicitly prohibited by federal law to include convicted felons; persons under indictment for felonies; adjudicated “mental defectives” or those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions; illegal drug users; illegal aliens and most non-immigrant aliens; dishonorably discharged veterans; those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; fugitives from justice; persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. Therefore, no federal permit is required (or available) for the interstate transportation of firearms. Robinson does not fit any of the restricted person criteria as described above. However, having the gun in the glovebox is likely what the New York police have taken issue with. A Funded Justice page, started by James Gressett, reads: “Deanna Jo, loving mother of two adorable boys, Veteran, Activist and friend in liberty, was arrested in NYC on Nov 11 while traveling from Texas, when her self-defense handgun was discovered in her vehicle. Please help us free her from Rikers. Two beautiful little boys are wondering where their mother is after the family of three traveled across the country from Texas to NYC so the children could spend time with their estranged father. Deanna Jo is a responsible mother and a veteran with military clearances and a Texas License to Carry. Concerned primarily with her children’s safety and posing no threat to any other person, Deanna Jo arrived at her destination, where her estranged husband took the children into his house then contacted police, who found her self-defense handgun in her vehicle. No mother should be forced to leave behind her best means of self defense, yet the City of New York sends a clear message: “We do not care about your Constitutional rights or your personal safety, and the only people who have guns here are criminals.” Now Deanna Jo sits in a cage at Rikers Island, stripped of her rights and incarcerated, and her children are missing her dearly. She needs to return to them so they can be with their mother. The city has basically told her that her life and the lives of her children are meaningless and that her right to protect them is trivial. We are a group of friends who want to see Deanna Jo reunited with her children as soon as possible. The goal set on the fundraising page is $25,000 and as of this writing has reached $6,400. The Free Thought Project spoke with Second Amendment and free speech activist Michael Picard who bailed Robinson out on Friday. He told us that Robinson is going to fight the charges all the way as there was no victim of her alleged crime. “She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her,” Picard told TFTP. Unfortunately for Robinson, this is the second time she’s had an unjust experience with police. As TFTP reported at the time, Robinson was raided by police who were there to take her children over an alleged custody dispute. Robinson, who had a camera rolling at the time of the raid was seen pinned into a corner by Hunt County Deputy Josh Robinson who began beating the handcuffed 9-month pregnant woman as she screamed out in horror. Deputy J. Robinson was subsequently no-billed by a Hunt County grand jury and has since been reinstated to full duty. Robinson was cleared of any wrongdoing and CPS later admitted there was no warrant. If you’d like to call Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, and peacefully express to him that this woman has been through enough and doesn’t deserve to be locked in a cage for protecting herself and her children, you can so at this number: 718-590-2000. Also, if you’d like to donate to her legal fees, you can do so at her Funded Justice page.
This fund is to help us do that, plus assist with the legal battle to come.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
According to Federal law, an individual is not restricted from transporting legally acquired firearms across state lines for lawful purposes except those explicitly prohibited by federal law... Figures you'd be praising the State for violating her Second Amendment rights. Nope - not surprised one iota. It's nothing BUT shit. WHY are you celebrating a UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
BTW,I figured this had to be a white woman,or the NYPD wouldn't have the stones to go after her. Sure enough....... BTW,here asshat husband is the one who dropped the dime on her to report her for having a weapon. He did this AFTER she brought the kids up from Texas to NYC to visit with him. I wonder how many NYPD cops he's related to? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Let’s see now … I am having a little trouble with the “not withstanding” part. Also, the article said she had the “handgun in her glovebox.” Oops! What does this mean: What does it mean “… other than the glove compartment …”
Federal and New York State laws prohibited her from having the weapon in her glove compartment…she violated both of those laws by having it there.
Kind of tough to protect herself when the gun is locked away in the trunk, don't you think? Of course, you cheer the State once again for their gun-grabbing policies and their making a law-abiding citizen a felon for not begging permission. This woman was a threat to NO ONE except any bad guys who intended to do her harm. Maybe you think women should be defenseless and count on the gooberment to protect them - I don't know. But it sure seems that way. This goes back to what I said on another thread to you - TPTB don't give a rat's ass whether you live or die. “She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her” What a sad commentary on your Air Force career that you would refuse to allow a fellow Officer her Second Amendment rights. And that is exactly what she did. Capiche? You may also use that one to imitate me …
No, I don’t cheer the State for anything. I am merely continuing to point out that she violated both a Federal and a State law and she was arrested for that. She can elect to violate those laws, she has that choice….but, Bubba, she has no choice but live with the consequences when she is caught. She violated the laws, she was caught….that is the end of the story, PERIOD.
Really,WHAT "Federal Laws" would those be? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Truth to tell,it might as well be in the trunk as in the glove compartment. If you have enough time to put your car in park,remove your keys from the ignition switch,and then unlock the glove compartment and pull your guy out,you had enough time to drive away. "Glove Compartment Carry" is for convenience,not self-defense. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I believe that could be true. But I didn’t read anywhere in the Federal or State laws that the cops could decide she was a threat to no olne, hand her the weapon back for her to return it to the glove compartment….and then the cops just pat her on the ass and say “run along sweetie.” Perhaps it was there and I missed it….did you see it?
Her situation was that she violated both Federal and State laws and she was arrested for doing that. People have the right to choose to violate the Federal and State laws….but unfortunately for them, they do not have the right not to suffer the consequences.
Uh, Bubba, serving her country in the Air Force does not give her the right to violate Federal and State laws….now, really, does it?
Boo Hoo! Her Second Amendment rights were not violated. The Federal and States laws were violated.
The constitution says shall not infringe..... It is the supreme law of the land. The traitors who enacted this unconstitutional piece of legislation should have rocks thrown at them. People who cheer their traitor pretend legislation should also have rocks thrown at them.
Yes they were. You either lie or are very ignorant.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:…” You would have hated the founders.
Really,WHAT "Federal Laws" would those be? For clarity, that should have read “Federal law and New York State law prohibited .. The Federal law “would be” …
This line you have posted here introduces a recitation of certain acts of Parliament regarded as unconstitutional exercises of authority by the Americans. It doesn’t pertain in any way to me because I of course was not in the English Parliament when this great Nation was founded. Nope, I hate no one and I would definitely never have hated the Founders. But I really do fail to understand ignorant people who have an attitude to feel they are entitled and have the absolute authority to selectively choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they will disobey. I have never seen any evidence that our Founding Fathers had that attitude. Ergo, I would have no reason to have hated them. The Founding Fathers had “legal principles”….they placed belief in God and acceptance of natural moral law (derived from reason and corroborated in Judeo- Christian revelation) as the foundation of the American system. I admire the “legal principles" of our Founding Fathers and I am okay with those… are you too? I am going to post something to you that may flat knock you on your ass with you attitude if you have never read it before. It is one of the principles written by our Founding Fathers. I trust that you will not go into shock as you read this: I trust I didn’t shock you too much. Actually, check that….I hope the Hell that I did! Stone, I fear it is as GI stated about you in a different way….that you have been reading The Free Thought Project too much and listening to Deckard spouting his “cop-hating manta” too long while ignoring the overtures introducing you to things of substantial reality. Those being “common sense and good judgment.” Oh yea, stone, you really have … But, BRO, I have faith that it is only a temporary thing because I like you.
I'll get back to you. 🦁🐐🐑
What happens when derelicts are in government office creating laws or performing duties based on "laws" that are antithetical to the established US Constitution? What you say. revert to laws subordinated by these same untrustworthy "leaders" that have established your own government pension?
The Federal and States laws were violated. Yes they were. You either lie or are very ignorant. So you only say, and with no supporting factual evidence being presented by you….that is merely your “personal opinion” to which you are entitled. As for me, I had rather deal with facts and not “personal opinions.” So, I can show you factually where she violated the Federal law and she was arrested for doing that. Then I will kindly ask that you please show me factually where her Second Amendment rights were violated? If you can factually do that without injecting any personal opinions, then I will duly accept your thesis and sincerely apologize for ever doubting you. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are the one who is very ignorant.
Yes, that is from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. But you entirely left out 30 important words between “It” and “the supreme law of the land.” I am going to ask you a sincere question. I am not trying to trick you or to set you up. I sincerely seek an answer fully realizing the answer you give will be only your opinion. First, we need to establish an accepted definition of the function word “and.” I looked this definition up on Merriam-Webster and it sounds good to me. If it also sounds good to you, then we will use this common definition. The word “same” is used a number of times within that definition. What that all tells me is that everything before the word “and” is “within the same class or type and has joined “elements of the same grammatical rank or functions as everything after the word “and.” To simplify it, both sides of anything connected by “and” are of equal standing, value and importance. Are we in agreement so far? I assume we are and I will proceed. I will now print a portion of Article VI … /…./ This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [….] under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Boldness Added]. /.…/ Okay, here comes the tricky part and I am warning you ahead of time. I am not setting you up. I sincerely do not know the answer to the question I am about to ask. I only have an opinion in this case as will you also only have an opinion. Assuming both sides of the function word “and” are completely EQUAL in standing of importance and compliance, again…as I believe we should have by now agreed on….then [wait for it]… are not the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof [….] under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land just as much as the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land? So, again…are the laws of the United States which were made in pursuance thereof [the Constitution] just as equally the “supreme law of the land” as is the Constitution up until such time as they may be judged to be unconstitutional? Come on….stop with that shit. No one should have rocks thrown at them. Stay civil….please.
I'll get back to you means I'll respond better when at regular keyboard. Hope you had a good thanksgiving.
I really knew that.
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA. 18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms | US Law Really? When did that replace the 2nd Amendment? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
"Federal Law" doesn't replace Constitutional Law,dummy! In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
“Transporting” a firearm? The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon.
Here we go… Got it now?
We all know you get wood at the thought of having a strong and domineering master,but this ain't your wet dream come true because in order to TRANSPORT a firearm you have to POSSESS a firearm. In case you missed it,the 2nd Amendment is about our right to POSSESS. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to. Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Really? Pretty sure it says more than just that. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you? Your question asking me “Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you” is an excellent question and of great importance. So I will make a deal with you, You like deals, don’t you? Of course you do….especially ones that you expect to greatly benefit from. Okay, here’s the deal: I will think about your question while performing the caregiver duties and answer it when I am finished. That’s my part of the deal. In the meantime while I am busy, you will post which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you.” That’s your part of the deal. Sounds fair, right? And you of course do believe in fairness, right? Okay, you make your post and I will respond when I return….forgive me, but it may be a while. I look forward to reading your post telling which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you” with great excitement and high expectations.
I see that you haven’t had time or the inability to intelligently post your answer to: Which part of "shall not be infringed" is NOT confusing to you? So, I will therefore proceed with my answer to your queston as promised. Repeating your question: The factual truth you are ignorant of or will not admit to is that America has regulated guns since its earliest days and gun control is embedded as a part of history starting under the founding fathers A shocking statement….I will admit it is. But let’s look for the truth behind the statement. Shall we? As a practicing libertarian, it will be astounding to you to learn the founding fathers who crafted the Second Amendment did not believe that the right to “keep and bear arms” was a great libertarian license and a “divine” proclamation for anyone to have any gun anywhere he wanted. Oh, the founding fathers did believe the right to “have arms” was an individual right. And they believed that the government should never be able to completely disarm the public. You probably have never known that the founding father actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Surprised? Oh, they surely did....slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. Reason? Because the founding fathers feared they might revolt if armed. OMG, the shocking truth is that the founders would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white also. Does that surprise you? Of course it does! But wait, those people could own guns if the swore allegiance yo the government forming for the Revolution. What? You would blow a heart valve if today you were required to swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. Now those good people who were not permitted ot have a gun were not traitors fighting for the British….they were simply among the 40 percent of people who….wait for it….strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and simply felt that 13 small disorganized colonies who were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea. Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishedson the Internet. So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare. If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not? The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you? Your turn …
Oh, by the way….that is not my statement about how constitutional law developed….it came from the internet where constitutional lawyers and learned constitutional scholars presented information. I can take time to go look up the source, but with your abject closed biased mind….it would do no good to give a citation. However, if you so strongly disagree with the statement, then perhaps you should take some time to look into it and if the statement is wrong….then enlighten us all and show us how constitutional law really developed. But since you brought it up, our constitutional right to own and possess firearms originated with the founding fathers. Want to know how the Founding Fathers dealt with the right to bear arms? Then you should read Post #37. Adult Warning: You may be shocked!
Those were MINIMUM requirements, numbskull! They specified what weapons the Militia was required to have, not what they could keep and bear when off duty. .
The last portion of my post reposted without the italics I forgot to close off. This will make for easier reading….thanks for the understanding. /…./ Now, we of course should never try to emulate the foundering fathers and adopt gun laws like they did purely on the basis of race or political ideology. Wait….you don’t believe that happen? Then go research the Internet and you will find out it did. You won’t believe it even if you read it? Why not? You take as gospel everything The Free Thought Project publishes on the Internet. So my point thus far as to: “Which part of shall not be infringed is confusing to you” has been the information I am now sharing with you. I can answer, all of it. Because, the founding fathers limited access to guns….restricted and prevented ownership of guns….when they deemed it necessary to preserve the public welfare. If you are so deeply proud of the founding fathers, as we all should be, then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people, or ... Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? If not, then why not? The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….but we shall make that a subject for another time. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you with too many facts. So I will stop for now and wait for you to respond with an answer to the question: “Which part of shall not be infringed is NOT confusing to you? Your turn …
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill. Don’t you think we should still be able to do what the founding fathers did and find some appropriate balance? Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a military serviceman or woman with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another. Those were different times and yes - I would have joined the Revolution. You seem to forget that the people of that time were revolting against a government that had enslaved them - an apt parallel to the government here in the United States today. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what their country has become. So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on-board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons. Because...wait for it - the LAW is always right and we should never disobey any government edict. Anyway, who ever said Deanna Robinson is a criminal or mentally ill? Care to explain … We hear the term “Founding Fathers” frequently thrown around this day and time during a lot of political and Second Amendment discussions. This is usually done….as you are doing now,….in questioning what the Founding Fathers “did” or “did not do” and what they "intended" or "would have wanted." But come on now, fess up….what do you really know about out Founding Fathers? You probably don’t even know that the term “Founding Fathers” itself wasn’t actually coined until a 1916 in a speech given by Warren G. Harding. I have no doubt this bit of knowledge I am imparting to you comes as a complete surprise. I can give you a few more intriguing but lesser- known facts about just a few of the people who might qualify for the appellation “Founding Fathers” or, in one case, Mothers. But then I will save that for another time. We certainly don’t want to information overload your brain….now, do we? Getting back on point … What is the association of your remark about the “Founding Fathers not advocating jailing a former military service person” with the information in my post you are responding to where I pointed out that the founding fathers actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. And the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. Can you even phantom the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun? I can’t….but the Founding Fathers did. “Sad.” Those white people whom the Founding Fathers prevented from owning guns were not traitors fighting for the British. They were simply among the 40 percent of people who strongly exercised their freedom of conscience and felt that 1 small disorganized colonies wo were about to take on the most powerful nation in the world was a bad idea. I’m sorry and I don’t mean to be cruel to you….at least this time….but sometimes your posts express things in an incomprehensible and confusing way. This is definitely one of those times youy post is definitely unclear. You may have a “do-over” for your post here, if you so desire …
“There you go again” … From before: Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a military serviceman or woman with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another. You keep thinking you know SO MUCH about the “Founding Fathers” and what they would or not do. I am here to prove you really don’t know shit about the “Founding Fathers” because I know you can’t even name ALL of the “Founding Fathers.” To prove that….I will issue a challenge to you. If you can name ALL the “Founding Fathers” then I will donate $500 to Stone for the maintenance expense of Liberty’s Flame Forum. If you cannot name ALL of the “Founding Fathers” then you will donate only $50 Stone for the maintenance expense of Liberty’s Flame Forum. Game on?
They swore allegiance to the Revolution. The government in power at that time was the British. That starts out as a false premise, transitions to a supposition, moves to a hypothesis before finally ending in a flat out guess. I don’t deal in premises, suppositions, hypotheses and definitely no guesses. If you want to continue a serious discussion….then you must give me something factual to respond to.
They swore allegiance to the Revolution. The government in power at that time was the British. Bzzzt – Wrong! Once again you are showing your ignorance. Don’t continue with this and make me also into an idiot. For it would be ar Robert Kiyosaki said: “If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots.” The members of the “American Colonial Society” rejected the authority of the British Parliament. In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain. Each of the thirteen colonies formed a Provincial Congress that assumed power from the old colonial governments and suppressed Loyalism, and from there they built a Continental Army under the leadership of General George Washington. The Continental Congress determined King George's rule to be tyrannical and infringing the colonists' rights as Englishmen, and they declared the colonies free and independent states on July 2, 1776. So, it is as I correctly stated: “A law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government.” Tell me, why did you sleep through your American history classes …
You have posted since this message so you must have seen it. BTW….I mean the recognized Official List of Founding Fathers [and Mothers].
Deckard, Judging from the lack of your continuing responses and the display of your ignorance, this thread appears to now have run its full lifespan. Therefore, I will take the liberty to conduct the Thread Requiem at this time. I really feel sorry for Mrs. Robinson. She probably is a very nice and kind lady who is the mother of some great kids but through ignorance drove into a “hornet’s nest” in New York at a time they were undertaking a severe crack down on the unauthorized carry of weapons. I make this statement assuming she was not intentionally breaking the law and expecting not to get caught. Furthermore, I don’t think she deserves jail time for her stupid mistake, but that’s not up to me….it is up to a judge and jury or a prosecutor to decide whether or not to dismiss the charge. Furthermore, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and I proudly carry. I accidently let my CCW permit expire but I continue to carry under the provisions of the Arizona law that now permits concealed carry [in unrestricted places] without a permit. Having said all of this, I took umbrage with some folks trying to make the “Robinson Incident” a Second Amendment case….which it definitely was not. From all the research infor I could find, I determined that her arrest was Constitutional and performed under Constitutional Law. I don’t care how hard this grates on you or how much it may make you want to puke….but what I have posted through this thread are only facts and I have adequately defended all of my points. Drawing a parallel to the song If you're gonna play in Texas, You gotta have a fiddle in the band ….I say, if your gonna argue in favor of the Second Amendment you gotta have your facts straight. Don’t argue from wishful emotion as to what you think things should be….argue from strength while armed with facts as to what things definitely are. The Second Amendment is not some magical phrase you can shout out and then own and carry any weapon anywhere you want to at anytime you wish to do so. If you don’t know much about the Second Amendment….there is not a better time to learn ALL about it that now and there is no better place to learn ALL about it than the Internet. Before I go, Deckard, I need to rate you….first on your factual knowledge of the Founding Fathers, then on your Second Amendment knowledge and finally on your Forum Décor. Here are your scores presented in that same order reading from left to right …
That's called ANARCHY. The only laws to be disobeyed are ones ALREADY DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The AGENDA cult always feels they are important enough to deem what's constitutional or not from their constitutional scholar degrees. Fuck them. That's not how we roll. They get ARRESTED... and if the law isn't constitutional, they have their case reviewed by the highest courts. The AGENDA cult thinks it works the other way around... they decide what's constitutional and deem the cops thugs... how can that not go wrong? lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Which did not supersede the British government. Gee whiz pumpkin - it's a simple question, since it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact. I'll take your non-response as a "yes". Which did not supersede the British government. The point was NOT whether the alternative government supersede the British government or not. The point always was that the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies. Damn, boy, I hope your poor ole mama didn’t have as much trouble keeping you straight as I am … This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers and yet you continually stand up for them like they walk on water. This swearing to support the government is gross by your standards against how any American government should operate. I can only image how you would react if Trump requited you to swear allegiance to the government before you could have a weapon. At some point in your life, you really do need to your shit together and GET FUCKING REAL …
I'll take your non-response as a "yes". Here, I’ll let you listen to it … And, your question was not a simple question. It is the same type false premise I would use were I to ask you: “If the people to whom you give blowjobs start requiring you to rinse your mouth with Listerine before you try to swallow their dicks….would you do it?” See how stupid that is. Your question was just as stupid. It was stupid and a false premise since it is something for which there is no evidence it would ever happen [let’s hope so in your case] ergo, it was a mute unanswerable question as I see it. You really do need to get real. I know I have said that before….but I cannot say it often enough to you. I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember. But I am not going to waste time searching my memory bank to try to find one. That does not mean I will, nor is it intended to imply that I will, support all future laws the federal government enacts. I will make a decision when and if it ever becomes necessary. FOOTNOTE: Get the fuck out from under your bed, Deckard, and quit falsely worrying each day that the Feds are going to smash in your front door and confiscate your guns. Learn to live life to the fullest….turn off the worry mode. Geeze …
Sidebar Question:
-- the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies. This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers --- Gatlin has failed to cite exactly where or when this requirement was enacted by the founding fathers, or by "the alternative government of the colonies".. Someone else may have to ask him, because he usually hides behind the bozo function to avoid my questions...
Someone else may have to ask him, because he usually hides behind the bozo function to avoid my questions... Gatlin is having some problems with queer-eye transplants etc., so who knows when his/her/it's surgical modification issues will be resolved, if ever? libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=53601&Disp=7#C7 Probably started as a result of severe eye strain, from following yukon's ghey pron links.
Which did not supersede the British government. That is not the point. That is EXACTLY the point! We were REVOLTING against the British. Well, that pretty much sums up your submissive fealty to fed.gov. Abortion, gay marriage, the assault weapons ban in 1994, NSA spying on American citizens. Doesn't matter to you - the State is your god. My apologies. I didn't realize you are senile. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
HorseHillary! Slaves couldn't legally OWN firearms because they were,well,they were slaves. Freed blacks could and DID own firearms. Some even fought in the Revolutionary War. AND......,some slaves actually carried weapons on occasion,with their master's permission. They just couldn't OWN them,anymore than they could own any other property. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Oh,well! That's different! We all KNOW the internet or lawyers would never lie to us,right? But since you brought it up, our constitutional right to own and possess firearms originated with the founding fathers. Are you REALLY THAT freaking ignorant? The Founding Fathers said it was a DIVINE RIGHT THAT ALL FREE MEN HAD AT BIRTH. The 2nd Amendment merely identified and codified it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
What next,neices,nephews,and step-children? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Riddle me this,fatman. WHY the HELL is identifying their names so freaking important to you? They are long dead,and it is now impossible for you to lick their boots. What is important is recognizing their accomplishments. I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein. Does that mean you understand his theories? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well, that pretty much sums up your submissive fealty to fed.gov. Exactly! He's just not happy unless he has a master's boot to lick. Not there there is anything wrong or illegal about that. If it makes him happy,I'm happy for him. My objection is he wants us all to be bootlickers. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The Founding Fathers said it was a DIVINE RIGHT THAT ALL FREE MEN HAD AT BIRTH. One of the biggest lies ever told by any Founding Father was written into the Declaration Of Independence. It was … Thomas Jefferson authored that and Thomas Jefferson owned SLAVES before he wrote that, during the time he was writing that, and continued to do so long after he wrote that. Riddle me this, uninformed dimwit. What in the Hell Did Thomas Jefferson actually Mean by “All Men Are Created Equal”?
Freed blacks could ONLY own firearms after they swore allegiance to the government. You need to work on your reading comprehension. My point STILL is: You had to swear allegiance to the government at the time to own firearms. But my point STILL stands, the freed slaves had to swear allegiance to the government in order to own firearms. So, since slaves couldn’t OWN firearms…then how in the HELL does this last statement from you support any point your are attempting to make or contradict anything I have thus far said?
--- the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun. -- the colonists had to swear allegiance to the government before they could own a gun. The government they were required to swear allegiance to was the alternative government of the colonies. This swearing allegiance to the government was required by the Founding Fathers --- Gatlin has failed to cite exactly where or when this requirement was enacted by the founding fathers, or by "the alternative government of the colonies".. Typical of the crazy old coot...
I have no doubt that many things surprise you on a daily basis. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I do? I support Deckard when he posts something I agree with,and don't support him when he posts stuff I don't agree with. Deal with it. What makes one lie different from another lie for you? Now you are confusing me with you. A lie is a lie,period. Could it be that you display bias when you gather and remember information selectively? Hmmm … Duhhhhh! Yes,I AM biased,because unlike you,*I* make up my own mind about what is right and what is wrong. I don't need party hacks to tell me what to think. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It was … “All men are created equal” "In the eyes of the law" is unspoken,but assumed by everyone with a double-digit IQ. It doesn't speak well for you that this has to be pointed out. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Right at the top of your head. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
2) According to Federal law 1) HAAAAAAA, YELLA BULLSHIT 2). States rights supersede, federal, pickle smootch. STFU. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Right at the top of your head. That was an adorable quip but your intend satirical witticism crossed the line to become snarky and backfire to prompt me to show that it was the Founding Fathers who indeed had pointed heads. I will never let get away by trying to be a smart ass and completely ignore irrefutable historical truth….although you may continue to show you are an ignorant ass when failing in any argument against any gun control by saying that it violates the Second Amendment. Such a claim is extremely hard to square with the history under our nation’s Founding Fathers where all of the colonies under the Founding Fathers [except of course the Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania which blocked the creation of a militia] mandated a requirement that each of the colonies specifically keep track of ALL privately owned weapons.
"In the eyes of the law" is unspoken,but assumed by everyone with a double-digit IQ. “All men are created equal” was still a DAMNED LIE told by Thomas Jefferson regardless of any way you might TRY to SPIN it and MASK the truth. If Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers truly believed that all men are created equal, then they should not have owned slaves or all should have become slaves….that would have made all men equal. Oh yea, “in the eyes of the law”….of course!!!
I do? I support Deckard when he posts something I agree with,and don't support him when he posts stuff I don't agree with. Now you are confusing me with you. A lie is a lie,period. Duhhhhh! Yes,I AM biased … I greatly appreciate your truthfulness here….thank you for that.
I have no doubt that many things surprise you on a daily basis. Yea, you are absolutely right, Pete….many things do surprise me on a daily basis. I daily find that life is so full of unpredictable beauty and packed full of strange surprises. Sometimes the beauty is almost too much for me to handle. Do you know that feeling, Pete? Do you know when something is just too beautiful, Pete? Have you ever experienced a wonderful daily surprise that changed your for the better, Pete?
Moving along to continue educating you… While the American Revolution was great, it however did not sweep away the English common law….most now independent colonies still followed the English common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence which included the ban on traveling armed in populated areas Shocking !!!
The Founding Fathers insured that the American colonies continued a variety of gun restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. Armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. SInce the Founding Fathers and the now independent colonies elected to continue following most English common law….thusly, there was no general right for individuals armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted and most certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons.Talk about gun control. Yep, the colonies had it really bad under the Founding Fathers. The traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception. Gasp !!!
You can demonize government power for gun control today all you want to and I will join with you at all times for that, but I will never let you ignorantly portray the times under the Founding Fathers were the best for gun ownership and freedom to carry. For in 1786, Boston acted on the legal principle established by the Founding Fathers in that it prohibited the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. How ‘bout them apples, Pete. It would surely frost your ass today, if you had to obey the mandate set that the guns in your house had to be kept unloaded.
In addressing Second Amendment fanatics….I mean those die-hard fanatics uneducated on the Second Amendment….I will continue to point out that the:
You really have obtained a previously undiscovered level of "dumb ass",ain't ya? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
BullBush! Complete and total. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Gatlin: "I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life." Gatlin: "I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life." But you now choose to conveniently ignore and leave that qualifier out so you can present a BIASED statement portraying a false conclusion….as you and your asshole God TFTP always do. Everything is always FALSE with you bias-driven assholes! ***snicker***
Well...you've had several thousands of "moments" to reflect on which laws you do not support. I gave you 4 in the original post that you could very well have expressed your opposition to. Abortion, gay marriage, the assault weapons ban in 1994, NSA spying on American citizens. Doesn't matter to you - the State is your god. Not a peep from the head canary as of yet. Perhaps - however The Declaration of Independence would indicate that "to everything there's a season". When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. If the signers of the Declaration were alive today, it's a pretty safe bet they would agree that "it's time to shoot the bastards". I continue to be very much shocked at some of your disputing assumptions which are absolute sanctities only to you where they will forever remain quite improbable propositions delivered in the dishonorable heat of defiance and indignation. All of this is to say that based on what the signers of the Declaration did during their day, you are a stupid fool to believe you can predict what the signers of the Declaration of Independence would do today. Get frigging real….asshole. Quit trying to predict what dead people from long ago would do today and clean up your own act to properly conduct yourself in your own actions.
You're delusional. Well...you've had several thousands of "moments" to reflect on which laws you do not support. I have had several thousands of “moments” to reflect, but I am using those important moments to continue growingly enrich myself with successful swing trading in this wonderfully incomparable and unprecedented stock market with its upward movement action that our great President, The Right Honorable Donald J. Trump has caused for us. I will however take a “moment” here and now to graciously say: Thank you, President Trump. Right now I am quite busy with only another hour of trading and I need to make another couple of “thou”. So, if it is a peep you want from your esteemed recognition of the almighty head canary ….then here is your peep: THERE….take that peep, then go and continue to fuck yourself.
You will no doubt be surprised to learn studies have shown that there are much higher instances of mental disorder in creative geniuses than in the general population. And while it's impossible to be completely sure of a correct diagnosis of a historical figure, that hasn’t stopped researchers from making educated guesses. I can provide you with a speculative look at the mental health of 11 of history's big thinkers when I have time between my stock market action. Oh, not that I would ever try to compare myself to any one of them….although I will graciously permit you to freely do so.
I believe the scientific term is "Bat Shit Crazy". In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Are you declaring yourself to be a "creative Genius"? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Are you declaring yourself to be a "creative Genius"? Sure looks that way to me. Many of whom used marijuana and/or other mind-altering drugs. Of course, I don’t follow and associate with strung-out and doped-up riff raff like you continually do. Speaking of riff raff, are you still hanging out with hondope? I have him on bozo, so if you are staying in contact with him….say, “Hi”.
Are you declaring yourself to be a "creative Genius"? Sure looks that way to me. Modesty prevents me from answering your question … I did assume that question applied to me.
I just remembered that Sigmund Freud used cocaine more than a personal indulgence; he highly regarded it as a veritable wonder drug. It messed his mind up so much that today many refer to a fuck up as a “Freudian slip”. They do so when they try to gloss over a parapraxis….an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought. You know the feeling of having many times committing a parapraxis….I have seen you do it often.
Successful Marijuana Users Who Prove The Person Matters More Than The Plant William Shakespeare Queen Victoria James Monroe George Bush Carl Sagan Louisa May Alcott Francis Crick -(Francis Crick was of two scientists (the other was James Watson) who earned the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA in 1962. Oliver Sacks Stephen Ray Gould Bill Gates Kary Mullis (A 1993 Nobel Laureate in chemistry for his DNA research on the polymerase chain reaction) Steve Jobs Margaret Mead Richard Feynman Sarah Palin Lincoln Chafee John Hickenlooper (current Governor of Colorado) Martha Stewart Michael Bloomberg Rush Limbaugh Clarence Thomas You forgot Bill Clinton, used but didn't inhale!
You wasted your time and went to all that trouble to post this shit to me. “Sad.”
I did take time to look up one of the names on the list. Thanks for the good laugh …
Since you wanted to show shining examples of “greatly successful people” who smoked marijuana you forget the “biggest” poster boy for YOUR product of all times: So, here he is … LMAO @ …
"Speculative"???? Isn't that another way of saying "wild-assed guess/brain fart"? Why not say you can give a speculative look at Bubbette! Clinton and Helen Thomas that proves they are super model material? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Gatlins claim above, is an opinion, undocumented. Gatlin is a liar, unable to post his proofs.
Sarge has always been a liar.
I know of NO scotus opinion that addressed the issue above. It's constitutionality is very unlikely. Once again, gatlin is parroting an opinion as a truth.
SInce the Founding Fathers and the now independent colonies elected to continue following most English common law….thusly, there was no general right for individuals armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted and most certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons.Talk about gun control. Yep, the colonies had it really bad under the Founding Fathers. The traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception. It appears that gatlin is reposting the opinions of who? ---- Sounds to me like it could from a notorious socialistic 'history of the USA' by a guy called Howard? Zinn? In any case, consider the source, LF's most notorious phony..
No such 'legal principle was established by the Founding Fathers'. Unable to post the proofs, gatlin continues to post his anti-gun opinions, and outright lies.
Large scale? Bullshit.. Post your proofs. More gatlin lies.. What is he trying to accomplish with this antigun tirade?
It has NOT been shown by you and it has NOT been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existence today.. Poor gatlin is completely delusional.. -- He's believing his own phony rhetoric.
I daily find that life is so full of unpredictable beauty and packed full of strange surprises. Sometimes the beauty is almost too much for me to handle. Your idol Charles Mansion is DEAD, get over it! Lying won't bring your soul mate back, so just stop.
I'm not so sure he knows it,though. I think he just believes anything that pops into his head. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
He has a screw loose in the noggin' ... that is certain.
It has NOT been shown by you and it has NOT been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existence today.. Why are you such a coward?
Robinson does not fit any of the restricted person criteria as described above. However, having the gun in the glovebox is likely what the New York police have taken issue with.
No shit?
#2. To: Gatlin (#1)
No shit?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#3. To: Gatlin (#1)
No shit?
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
#5. To: Deckard (#2)
Under the Firearms Owners’ Protection act, or FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered. 1
You being the expert on all of this, perhaps you can help me understand what the meaning of: “… not withstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm …” … if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
I am having a little trouble understanding: “ …the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.”
#6. To: sneakypete (#3)
WHY are you celebrating …
Not celebrating anything, Pete. … UNCONSTITUTIONAL …
I haven’t read anywhere those laws were declared unconstitutional….perhaps you have.
#7. To: Gatlin (#6)
(Edited)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
Kind of tough to protect herself when the gun is locked away in the trunk …
Conversely, it was kind of easy for her to ger herself arrested when she violated both a Federal and a State Law.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
Of course, you cheer the State once again for their gun-grabbing policies and their making a law-abiding citizen a felon for not begging permission.
#10. To: Gatlin (#6)
Federal and New York State laws prohibited her from having the weapon in her glove compartment…she violated both of those laws by having it there.
#11. To: Deckard (#7)
Kind of tough to protect herself when the gun is locked away in the trunk, don't you think?
#12. To: Deckard (#7)
This woman was a threat to NO ONE except any bad guys who intended to do her harm.
#13. To: Deckard (#7)
Maybe you think women should be defenseless and count on the gooberment to protect them - I don't know.
No, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with her situation.
#14. To: Deckard (#7)
But it sure seems that way.
It shouldn’t seem anyway to you except to understand I am for law and order. I am not an anarchist who wants no law and order or government…and I am not a libertarian wants to selectively choose which laws to obey and which not to.
#15. To: Deckard (#7)
“She served her country in the Air Force, and this is how New York serves her”
#16. To: Deckard (#7)
What a sad commentary on your Air Force career that you would refuse to allow a fellow Officer her Second Amendment rights.
#17. To: Gatlin (#6)
#18. To: Gatlin (#16)
#19. To: Gatlin (#16)
#20. To: sneakypete (#10)
Federal and New York State laws prohibited her from having the weapon in her glove compartment…she violated both of those laws by having it there.
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA.
18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms | US Law
#21. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#19)
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:…”
You would have hated the founders.
Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men…For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.
That was actually written by John Locke.
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
#23. To: Gatlin (#21)
Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men…For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Her Second Amendment rights were not violated.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#17)
(Edited)
It [this Constitution]…[and]]….[shall be] the supreme law of the land.
And | Definition of And by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/and
Definition of and. 1 —used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type —used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function. Article VI
The traitors who enacted this unconstitutional piece of legislation should have rocks thrown at them. People who cheer their traitor pretend legislation should also have rocks thrown at them.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#22)
#27. To: Gatlin (#26)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
I was just joshing with you, killing time.
I like to have fun …
Had a great Thanksgiving.
Hope you had a nice one also.
I’ll catch you tomorrow.
Good night …
#29. To: Gatlin (#20)
The Federal law “would be” …
#30. To: Gatlin (#24)
So, I can show you factually where she violated the Federal law and she was arrested for doing that.
#31. To: sneakypete (#29)
The Federal law “would be” …
Yea, really.
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA. 18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms | US Law
Really? … replace the 2nd Amendment?
It didn’t replace the 2nd Amendment.
It regulated the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, TRANSPORT, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories.
That was what she was doing.
Right?
Of course it was. When …
1986.
It revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Federal laws say what kind of weapons you can have and where you can carry weapons.
If you have a problem with that then you take it up with the SCOTUS.
I’m not your huckleberry.
#32. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#30)
(Edited)
"Federal Law" doesn't replace Constitutional Law,dummy!
Duh … Duh …
It seems that you really don’t know what constitutional law is, imbecile!
So, here….please permit me to help you better understand by providing you with the Definition of Constitutional Law. Constitutional law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits.
[Boldness and Underlining have been added for the learning impaired who have neurologically-based processing problems].
I hope so.
For more legal definitions, visit the FindLaw Legal Dictionary.
#33. To: Gatlin (#31)
“Transporting” a firearm? That was what she was doing. Right? Of course it was.
#34. To: Gatlin (#32)
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings,
#35. To: Gatlin (#31)
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#36. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#35)
The 2nd Amendment says you can have a weapon. Really? Pretty sure it says more than just that. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, I just got up and I am starting some caregiver duties.
#37. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#36)
Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Actually, the whole phrase is confusing to me and I will be more than glad to specifically tell you why. However, with your closed biased mind I don’t expect you to understand. Therefore, I take the time do this so those with objective minds reading our exchange will understand and maybe learn something.
#38. To: sneakypete (#34)
The majority of this body of law [constitutional law] has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
Nah, I am not full of shit. I am just smarter than you are and since you can’t come up with an intelligent rebuttal to prove the statement wrong….then all you have left is the low-intelligence ability to fling an insulting remark. Our Constitutional RIGHT to own and possess firearms PREDATES the federal government. It is the basis on which the federal government was formed and agreed to.
Duh, DUH….of course it does. But we were not in anyway discussing that….or at least I never was, I was discussing constitutional law and the origin thereof. Which in NO way prevents you from voluntarily becoming the slave to a strong master that you want to be. That is also your Constitutional right.
Yep, and it’s your constitutional right to remain completely ignorant….but the reason why you want to exercise that constitutional right is something only you can understand.
#39. To: Gatlin (#37)
(Edited)
The founding fathers also imposed onerous restrictions on gun owners through militia laws….
#40. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, ALL (#37)
#41. To: Gatlin (#40)
(Edited)
then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#42. To: Gatlin (#37)
But wait, those people could own guns if the swore allegiance yo the government forming for the Revolution. What? You would blow a heart valve if today you were required to swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#43. To: Gatlin (#31)
Federal laws say what kind of weapons you can have and where you can carry weapons.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#44. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#41)
Deanna Jo Robinson is neither a criminal nor mentally ill.
At least, not that we know….right? then why can’t we emulate and duplicate the founding fathers today and restrict guns from some people….of which could be criminals, mentally ill people
Your association here with Robinson being a criminal olr mentally ill absolutely make no sense. Pretty sure the founding fathers never advocated jailing a former military service person with no criminal record for transporting a weapon from one place to another.
And I am pretty sure that you are right about that. But then do you actually know what the founding fathers advocated jailing people for?
#45. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#42)
The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what their country has become.
#46. To: Gatlin (#44)
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#47. To: Deckard (#43)
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
#48. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, (#46)
Can you even phantom (fathom) the idea of being a law-abiding citizen not being able to have a gun unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun?
#49. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone, (#45)
Game on?
Are you contemplating a response to my challenge?
Or, are you ignoring me because you already know that you will show your ignorance?
#50. To: Bzzzt Wrong, Gatlin, Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#48)
Bzzzt – Wrong!
And now, Gatlin's viewpoint....
#51. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
#52. To: Gatlin (#21)
But I really do fail to understand ignorant people who have an attitude to feel they are entitled and have the absolute authority to selectively choose which laws they want to obey and which laws they will disobey.
#53. To: Gatlin (#48)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#54. To: Gatlin (#47)
So - when fed.gov decides that Assault Weapons are no longer allowed and that possession of any such weapons is a criminal offense, you will be completely on- board with armed government goons going door-to-door "collecting" any and all of these previously legal weapons.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#55. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Ston (#53)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
That is not the point. You get so damned lost in the exchanges that it is tough for me to keep you straight.
#56. To: Deckard, sneakypete, A K A Stone (#54)
Gee whiz pumpkin - it's a simple question …
“Pumpkin” you called me….no, I’m Bumpkin. If fact, Cal Smith wrote a song about me famously known within the country music circle. But, you were close since pumpkin is mentioned in the song. Maybe that’s what mislead you. … it's obvious that you support ANY law that fed.gov decides to enact.
No that is not obvious, that is only a false opinion you have conjured up in your mind since you do not posses the intelligence to objectively comprehend my messages.
#57. To: Deckard (#56)
Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
#58. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#55)
--- the founding fathers would not permit ownership by many law-abiding white people either unless they would swear allegiance to the government in order to have a gun.
#59. To: tpaine, Gatlin, yukon, queer eye transplants, etc (#58)
Gatlin has failed to cite exactly where or when this requirement was enacted by the founding fathers, or by "the alternative government of the colonies"..
#60. To: Gatlin (#55)
In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#61. To: Gatlin (#56)
I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#62. To: Gatlin (#36)
I look forward to reading your post telling which part of “shall not be infringed” is NOT confusing to you” with great excitement and high expectations.
#63. To: Gatlin (#37)
You probably have never known that the founding father actually barred large portions of the public from possessing guns. Surprised? Oh, they surely did....slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning guns. Reason? Because the founding fathers feared they might revolt if armed.
#64. To: Gatlin (#38)
Oh, by the way….that is not my statement about how constitutional law developed….it came from the internet where constitutional lawyers
#65. To: Gatlin (#49)
BTW….I mean the recognized Official List of Founding Fathers [and Mothers].
#66. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#57)
Sidebar Question: Given how often you continue to refer to the Founding Fathers, everyone would think that you at least could pin down exactly who they were….can you?
#67. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#61)
I can say that I have never found any reason not to support any law that the federal government has enacted so far in my life. At least none that I can ever remember.
#68. To: sneakypete (#65)
What next,neices,nephews,and step-children?
Fine with me, I have no interest.
But if you want to name those,
then be my guest.
Have at it …
#69. To: sneakypete (#66)
I have no doubt you recognize the name Albert Einstein.
Of course, I do.
I stood many times at the address where old Al was born.
It was directly across from the Ulm Hauptbahnhof.
Our headquarters was in Ulm and I rode the train over there many times.
I am however, vastly surprised you even knew how to spell Einstein’s name.
Fess up, now….you really did need to use a “Spell Checker.”
#70. To: sneakypete (#64)
Oh,well! That's different! We all KNOW the internet or lawyers would never lie to us,right?
Of course they do.
But you believe and support the lying shit Deckard posts from TFTP.
What makes one lie different from another lie for you?
Could it be that you display bias when you gather and remember information selectively?
Hmmm …
#71. To: sneakypete (#66)
Are you REALLY THAT freaking ignorant?
Are you REALLY SO freaking ignorant to believe Found Fathers never lied? “All men are created equal”
#72. To: sneakypete (#63)
Slaves couldn't legally OWN firearms because they were,well,they were slaves.
Well, well….so, they still couldn’t own firearms and that is what I was saying. Freed blacks could and DID own firearms.
Dud … DUH … Some [freed blacks] even fought in the Revolutionary War.
Yes they did and made marvelous contributions. AND......,some slaves actually carried weapons on occasion,with their master's permission. They just couldn't OWN [firearms] ….
Damn, I have repeatedly said that slaves couldn’t OWN firearms. You just unnecessarily said that AGAIN.
#73. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#72)
Gatlin cannot post ANY proof that his statements below are true: ---
#74. To: Gatlin (#69)
I am however, vastly surprised you even knew how to spell Einstein’s name.
#75. To: Gatlin (#70)
But you believe and support the lying shit Deckard posts from TFTP.
#76. To: Gatlin (#71)
One of the biggest lies ever told by any Founding Father was written into the Declaration Of Independence.
#77. To: Gatlin (#72)
My point STILL is:
#78. To: sneakypete (#77)
(Edited)
Right at the top of your head.
#79. To: Deckard (#0)
1) Kidnapped
#80. To: sneakypete (#77)
My point STILL is:
#81. To: sneakypete (#76)
One of the biggest lies ever told by any Founding Father was written into the Declaration Of Independence.
More importantly, It doesn’t bode well for you to try to cover up TRUTH by attempting to cloak “all men are created equal” and hide one of the biggest lies ever told by a Founding Father who was a SLAVE ONWER…a lie written into the Declaration Of Independence.
It was …
“All men are created equal”
It doesn't speak well for you that this has to be pointed out.
#82. To: sneakypete (#75)
But you believe and support the lying shit Deckard posts from TFTP
That’s fair. Deal with it.
Oh, I definitely do….and I will continue to. What makes one lie different from another lie for you?
No confusion, that is exactly what I was emphasizing: A lie is a lie, period. Could it be that you display bias when you gather and remember information selectively? Hmmm …
Just like “a like is a lie, period” - conversely - “truth is the truth, period.”
#83. To: sneakypete (#74)
I am however, vastly surprised you even knew how to spell Einstein’s name.
#84. To: sneakypete (#83)
#85. To: sneakypete (#84)
#86. To: sneakypete (#85)
#87. To: sneakypete (#86)
The Founding Fathers engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian populating during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.
#88. To: Gatlin (#81)
More importantly, It doesn’t bode well for you to try to cover up TRUTH by attempting to cloak “all men are created equal” and hide one of the biggest lies ever told by a Founding Father who was a SLAVE ONWER…a lie written into the Declaration Of Independence.
#89. To: Gatlin (#84)
While the American Revolution was great, it however did not sweep away the English common law….most now independent colonies still followed the English common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence which included the ban on traveling armed in populated areas
#90. To: Gatlin, sneakypete (#86)
You can demonize government power for gun control today all you want to and I will join with you at all times for that,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#91. To: Deckard (#90)
You can demonize government power for gun control today all you want to and I will join with you at all times for that,
Gatlin also said: “… that I can recall at this moment.”
#92. To: Gatlin (#91)
(Edited)
Gatlin also said: “… that I can recall at this moment.”
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#93. To: GrandIsland (#52)
That's called ANARCHY.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#94. To: Gatlin (#87)
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#95. To: Deckard (#94)
If the signers of the Declaration were alive today, it's a pretty safe bet they would agree that "it's time to shoot the bastards".
Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today….it’s a pretty safe bet that you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and your assumption is grossly absurd since it is well known that you as an extremely biased skeptic of current governmental authority have an uncontrollable blind hatred for the enforcement of laws.
#96. To: Gatlin (#95)
Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today…
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#97. To: Deckard (#92)
Gatlin also said: “… that I can recall at this moment.”
Not a peep from the head canary as of yet.
#98. To: Deckard (#96)
(Edited)
You're delusional.
#99. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#96)
You're delusional.
#100. To: Gatlin (#98)
You will no doubt be surprised to learn studies have shown that there are much higher instances of mental disorder in creative geniuses than in the general population.
#101. To: sneakypete (#100)
You will no doubt be surprised to learn studies have shown that there are much higher instances of mental disorder in creative geniuses than in the general population.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#102. To: Gatlin (#98)
I can provide you with a speculative look at the mental health of 11 of history's big thinkers...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#103. To: Deckard (#102)
(Edited)
Many of whom used marijuana and/or other mind-altering drugs.
None of the 11 I am referring to ever did.
#104. To: Deckard (#101)
(Edited)
You will no doubt be surprised to learn studies have shown that there are much higher instances of mental disorder in creative geniuses than in the general population.
#105. To: Deckard (#102)
Many of whom used marijuana and/or other mind-altering drugs.
#106. To: Gatlin (#105)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#107. To: Deckard (#106)
#108. To: Deckard (#106)
#109. To: Deckard (#106)
(Edited)
It was the last name on the list and I only happen to notice it as I made my post to you.
Here is what I learned about Clarence Thomas … This is someone you have labeled as aSuccessful Marijuana User who admittedly “smoked marijuana several times” [meaning more than two but only a few times] in college and believes “it was a mistake and never repeated it.”
This admitted to mistake by Thomas who never repeated it again is such an inconsequential matter that it has absolutely no relevancy in any way to making Thomas a successful person because of the foolish youthful mistake of smoking a few joints.
#110. To: Deckard (#106)
#111. To: Gatlin (#98)
I can provide you with a speculative look at the mental health of 11 of history's big thinkers
#112. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#80)
--- all of the colonies under the Founding Fathers [except of course the Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania which blocked the creation of a militia] mandated a requirement that each of the colonies specifically keep track of ALL privately owned weapons.
#113. To: tpaine, tater (#112)
#114. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#84)
While the American Revolution was great, it however did not sweep away the English common law….most now independent colonies still followed the English common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence which included the ban on traveling armed in populated areas
#115. To: Gatlin (#85)
---- The Founding Fathers insured that the American colonies continued a variety of gun restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. Armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions.
#116. To: Gatlin (#86)
--- in 1786, Boston acted on the legal principle established by the Founding Fathers in that it prohibited the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city.
#117. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#87)
The Founding Fathers engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian populating during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.
#118. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#95)
Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today ----
#119. To: Gatlin, Helter Skelter Lying, Charles Mansion, tater, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#83)
#120. To: buckeroo (#113)
Sarge has always been a liar.
#121. To: sneakypete, tater (#120)
#122. To: Gatlin is posting elsewhere again, --- while cowardly ignoring legitimate questions. (#118)
Gatlin, --- Since it has been shown by me and it has been adequately documented that the signers of the Declaration were in favor of and enacted more stringent gun control laws that anything we have in existences today ----
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]