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.
The problem I see, is dems trying to change the Constitution WITHOUT amendments!
Example, OVER 20,000 anti gun laws on the books.
Wow. That many laws indicate arms are pretty well regulated, wouldn't you say?
See how words have meaning that people can disagree with, and you need a court to interpret them?
And by the way, I am groovy and a-okay with fairly loose gun laws. I can just see how some people might have different opinions, and I don't think it was ever intended to be a free for all. But I might be wrong...thus why I'll listen very carefully to the Supreme Court's rulings.
Face it .. the Democrats want to end free speech for the Conservatives. They want to take our gun rights away. They keep chipping at the Constitution and the Godly right to have Freedom . The democrats love big Federal Government, mandates, do not want to have a debate. It is their way and if anyone dares go against them the sicko media backs them up.
We see how one sided it is and it is not for the American people at all. The leftists use intimidation , smears, cancelling , putting them in jail, harassing them, threatening them, taking actions constantly in the courts, taking law licenses away, putting them in solitary confinement, using the word insurrection for trespassing, murdering unarmed Trump supporters and calling it justified. We see it . The left is nasty and anyone who sides with them is just as sick if not sicker .
The problem I see, is dems trying to change the Constitution WITHOUT amendments!
Example, OVER 20,000 anti gun laws on the books.
And notice how 'law enforcement' groups are the ones tasked with giving out conceal/carry licenses, and also enforcing those gun laws!!! WOW!
These laws wouldnt be such a big deal if they were not aggressively enforced, but look at the ATFs enforcement of full auto licenses, they will slap the cuffs on quickly if they a non-licensed person owning a full automatic...
But oddly enough, when the ATF, or other law enforcement branches raid your home for breaking some crime...they will definitely come armed with full automatics!!
Its pretty clear what these laws are for...to protect the Govts control over the peasants, but they do violate our Constitutional rights and therefore, as Americans, we CANNOT obey or comply with them.
No, all that was needed was a fighter who wouldn't go along. She's been great. I see Boebert as the exact analogue to AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene to Ilhan Omar
It's good we have these reps on the right to counter balance the crazies on the left
See these kooks like her, Greene, Gosar, Biggs, Jordan and Brooks are extremists and traitors. They wanted to usurp the most secured election just because their guy lost. Not because of any credible evidence of fraud (because if there was, the judges preceding over the cases would have not dismissed them.) As bad as AOC, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib are, they are not traitors to the country that were giving carte blanche to install a dictator. They should be tried for treason and when found guilty, thrown in jail or sentenced to death like the traitors that they are.
As for Bohebert's comments, nothing surprises me. She comes off as a partisan hack and a mental midget. Remember while she was "for 'back the blue,'" she got arrested for disorderly conduct for an incident where she thought minors who were illegally drinking at a music festival weren't given their Miranda rights and physically obstructed the police. She also defied the law by not going to a court appearance for a driving charge.
It also gets misinterpreted by conservatives, like when they claim that the 14A (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”) doesn’t apply to children of illegal immigrants. For 150 years that has meant birthright citizenship. Conservatives would like to “evolve “ it to mean something else.
to my knowledge, the SCOTUS has heard 1 major case questioning birthright citizenship, and it involved the child of legal immigrants.
I'm not an attorney, but based on previous cases where "standing" seems to be an important point, no "everyday American" could sue the Federal government just because they believe the 14th shouldn't include the US-born offspring of illegal parents. It would need to be:
1. a state suing to provide benefits allowed to citizens but claiming they wouldn't pay for the anchor baby.
2. An anchor baby suing because they were denied benefits by a state.
3. Congress could pass a law, if you had a POTUS to sign it.
Wow. That many laws indicate arms are pretty well regulated, wouldn't you say?
See how words have meaning that people can disagree with, and you need a court to interpret them?
And by the way, I am groovy and a-okay with fairly loose gun laws. I can just see how some people might have different opinions, and I don't think it was ever intended to be a free for all. But I might be wrong...thus why I'll listen very carefully to the Supreme Court's rulings.
"That many laws indicate arms are pretty well regulated, wouldn't you say"
Not even close.
The Constitutions does not say the arms to be "well regulated"
It does say, "A well regulated Militia,".
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.
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.
