Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2019, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
19,758 posts, read 22,666,896 times
Reputation: 24915

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Not a State's Rights issue as I've said before. Your state and all the others agreed to abide by the Constitution. READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT. What does it say? The Supreme Court in Heller ruled it as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT protecting arms in COMMON USE.

I am a big state's rights proponent when it isn't things that are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
It’s a reserved power of the state that does not unnecessarily infringe on the 2A.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2019, 05:44 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,222,978 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
But they can own and drive a car....
Under my proposal those that drive impaired by either dope or booze will be forever banned from ownership and operating motor vehicles. Remember, driving is a privilege not guaranteed by the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 05:48 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,222,978 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
1. Do you live in WA state or not? It does matter.

2. If the residents of WA state don’t like the laws they can elect people to overturn it.

3. That’s how democracy works. It’s a fairly simple concept that seems to evade a vast majority of RWNJ’s lately.

You’re welcome for the lesson in Civics. Next time pay attention in 8th grade, mmkay?
We live in a republic. You just had your civics class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,354,336 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
We live in a republic. You just had your civics class.
Amazing isn't it, that this condescending hypocrite is so quick to spout his mouth off yet he has no idea of what he is talking about? He keeps on repeating "Do you live in WA state or not?" He himself does not, he lives in Montana and yet he doesn't see the hypocrisy in that statement? If he can post comments about the affairs of another state on this thread as an out of state resident than so can others. It seems as though he only reserves that right for himself. I just got tired of reading his "LWNJ" rhetoric and placed him on my ignore list. He can spout off all he wants to with all of his snide remarks until his head explodes and I won't be able to read or respond to any of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,354,336 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Why does that matter? These laws are copied by other states, and local governments. They are like an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL CANCER.
Indeed it does matter!

Each state has it's own congressional delegation along with two senators. It's usually city council members, mayors, state senators and state legislators that often become that state's congressmen/women and senators. Once on the national stage they will submit bills and push the same legislation for the entire nation as they did when they were only representing their home state. For some that may be a little too difficult to comprehend? What goes on in every state is indeed everyone's business if we wish to remain a Constitutional Republic and retain all of our civil liberties. God help us if the entire country becomes another California, or New York. Our forefathers were very wise in setting up the type of government we enjoy today. They experienced tyranny, fought and won a revolution against it, and set up a system of governing to ensure that it will never happen again. But the $64,000 question is: Will we be able to sustain it, not only for us but for generations to come?

On November 18, 1956, Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev speaking at the Polish Embassy in Moscow declared:
Quote:
“Socialist states...base ourselves on the idea that we must peacefully co-exist. About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist...If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
As the United States of America moves closer to becoming a socialist aristocracy it seems like Khrushchev's prophesy may be coming to fruition. I can almost be sure that Khrushchev was familiar with America's lax immigration system that it would only be a matter of time that residents of third world nations would be taking over the United States and implementing their system of government here. Who would have ever thought a few short decades ago that a Bernie Sanders stood a chance of becoming president? Or that we would have people elected to congress such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib? Even worse yet elected a president (Obama) twice who vowed to fundamentally change America. A president that attended the church of Jeremiah Wright and had close ties with the likes of Louis Farrakhan?

Quote:
The Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Caucus members lists the following elected Representatives in the US House of Representatives as members:

· Neil Abercrombie (HI-01),

· Tammy Baldwin (WI-02),

· Xavier Becerra (CA-30),

· David Bonior (MI-10),

· Corrine Brown (FL-03),

· Sherrod Brown (OH-13),

· Michael Capuano (MA-08),

· Julia Carson (IN-10),

· William Clay (MO-01),

· John Conyers (MI-14),

· Danny Davis (IL-07),

· Peter DeFazio (OR-04),

· Rosa DeLauro (CT-03),

· Lane Evans (IL-17),

· Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa),

· Sam Farr (CA-17),

· Chaka Fattah (PA-02),

· Bob Filner (CA-50),

· Barney Frank (MA-04),

· Luis Gutierrez (IL-04),

· Earl Hilliard (AL-07),

· Maurice Hinchey (NY-26),

· Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02),

· Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18),

· Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11),

· Marcy Kaptur (OH-09),

· Tom Lantos (CA-12),

· John Lewis (GA-05),

· Jim McDermott (WA-07),

· James P. McGovern (MA-03),

· Carrie Meek (FL-17),

· George Miller (CA-07),

· Patsy Mink (HI-02),

· Jerry Nadler (NY-08),

· Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC),

· John Oliver (MA-01),

· Ed Pastor (AZ-02),

· Donald Payne (NJ-10).,

· Nancy Pelosi (CA-08),

· Jan Schakowski (IL-09),

· Jose Serrany (NY-16),

· Hilds Solis (CA-31),

· Pete Stark (CA-13),

· Bennie Thompson (MS-02),

· John Tierney (MA-06),

· Tom Udall (NM-03),

· Nydia Velazquez (NY-12),

· Maxine Waters (CA-35),

· Mel Watt (NC-12),

· Henry Waxman (CA-29),

· Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Central Washington
1,663 posts, read 876,610 times
Reputation: 2941
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
True. Remember, however, that the courts have upheld that restrictions against ownership of certain classes of firearms are completely legal. As long as you can still own a muzzleloader, all other firearms can be banned outright and 2A would remain completely intact.
Wrong. United States v. Miller (1939) states that weapons "in common use at the time" are protected. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the opinion written by Antonin Scalia also clarifies what is protected. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,354,336 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dozerbear View Post
Wrong. United States v. Miller (1939) states that weapons "in common use at the time" are protected. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the opinion written by Antonin Scalia also clarifies what is protected. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You know that you can repeat this information to this individual until you're blue in the face. They'll just choose to ignore it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

In the word's of an old Simon and Garfunkel song, The Boxer: "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,231 posts, read 18,579,444 times
Reputation: 25802
A lot of people are going to be practicing CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE. We have an inherit right to ignore ILLEGAL LAWS. Slavery was legal once, and people had an obligation to ignore that. The Second Amendment, and our NATURAL RIGHT to defend ourselves with ARMS is being extremely INFRINGED. I don't blame people in these states for not complying with illegal laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Arizona
7,511 posts, read 4,354,336 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
A lot of people are going to be practicing CIVIL DISOBEDIANCE. We have an inherit right to ignore ILLEGAL LAWS. Slavery was legal once, and people had an obligation to ignore that. The Second Amendment, and our NATURAL RIGHT to defend ourselves with ARMS is being extremely INFRINGED. I don't blame people in these states for not complying with illegal laws.
I don't either, but the problem is that they will never be able to use any of their firearms for any lawful purpose whatsoever without the risk of being arrested, charged, prosecuted and incarcerated. God help you if you have a fire or the authorities have to come to your residence for any reason and happen to find one of your prohibited magazines or particular firearm on the premises. You can forget about ever having one in your vehicle. That's the risk that we face.

Fortunately, Trump already has appointed and the senate has confirmed a lot of pro gun justices to the bench and Supreme Court with hundreds more to come in the remaining two possibly six years of his presidency. It's kind of like a game of "chicken". Do the Democrats want to risk having some of their most oppressive legislation overturned by the courts or not? If they are overturned that could spell the end of the gun control movement for decades to come. That's the risk that they'll be taking. In addition many of those oppressive gun laws that are already in place in some states stand a good chance of being overturned if challenged. Whether the Democrats decide to push their agenda any further is anyone's guess?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2019, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...46654447751407



OMG! I had no idea that **gasp** real voters can pass initiatives that turn into laws in their own states!

Oh my- we don’t live in a democracy after all.
well if you want a true democracy..there would not be a president, or senators at all.


everything would be voted for by the people...


in a democracy.. the people vote on ALL BILLS
lawyers draw up proposed bills, and the people vote on it

think of prop 8 in California….November 5, 2008 THE PEOPLE through a democratic process for their state constitution barring same-sex marriages.... democracy in action..... YET ...a fascist court ruling that overturned Proposition 8


if you want a true democracy...then you have to deal with the will of the people...but liberals dont really want that, since they REFUSE IT at every turn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top