- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
As I suspected - you are unable to back up your claims with any specific examples.
sorry..... but your case in impotent!....
As I suspected - you are unable to back up your claims with any specific examples.
We've gone through this before Apacherat. Los Angeles is hardly a gang infested city under foreign occupation. Can you be any more of a drama queen?
The reality is....I've never felt threatened at any time here in Los Angeles. I have lived in Mid-Wilshire, West Hollywood, Redondo Beach, The valley and even in the Crenshaw District. I've never felt a need to lock my doors. Even when I go on vacation, I leave my house unlocked. Some people might call it stupid....I just refuse to live my life behind locked doors or behind that Orange curtain.
What is a "gun trembler"? Is that a person with a shaky hand with a firearm in their possession?
By all means please present the law supporting your claims. My copy of the US Constitution lists several powers of Congress in the area of firearms that you apparently do not have in yours. We disagree all the time on this Turtle. All the time. You also disagree with the federal government and with many laws and Court decisions in this area.
So having said that - and meaning no disrespect to you as a person - why should I believe anything you say on this since you have presented your opinion to me many many many times before as law and it was obviously not true then? For example, the Constitiution says the Congress shall have the power to regulate, arm and discipline the militia. And we know from law that all able bodied persons are in the militia. But your position is that Congress can do no such thing.
So again - no disrespect to you as a person - but why should I believe you on this when most of these things come down to an interpretation of the law that is NOT CUT AND DRY and are areas which even attorneys and legal experts disagree on?
You are an attorney. I am not. So as a trained attorney please tell me something....... if a state declares some behavior as a right and the federal constitution does not recognize that behavior as a right - is that right and the exercise of that right limited to the residents of that state and only within that state and is NOT considered their right as an American but as a resident of that state?
I am asking you to get your trained professional opinion based on current law.
since i am a Madison protege...and since constitutional law is #1 on my hit parade i would like to see your copy, because there are no firearms powers in the constitution or the bill of rights.
Not every person who owns a gun owns it out of fear...but there are a good number of extremely paranoid people who own guns. It runs the gamut. Hell....I live in Los Angeles and I never lock my doors, even when I leave the house. I've never been the victim of a crime involving my house, then again, I have always owned dogs and figured anyone who would come into my home for property theft probably needs the stuff more than I do.
As I suspected - you are unable to back up your claims with any specific examples.
its right where?..list it for me please give me which clause...not section of the constitution.
are you saying it maybe the power " To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"...LOL
its sad and extremely poor, by making a statement saying "its right there" and producing nothing!
I think the conversation would be much more productive if people like Haymarket would admit that FDR conjured up such a right contrary to the language of the USC and the BoR and then us supporters of the proper intent would concede that disreputable justices allowed that usurpation to stand and later "conservative justices" (slaves to precedent) refused to overturn what was clearly a violation of the intent of the founders and an abomination to the tenth amendment and the concept of a limited government. The conversation is tangled because worshippers of the FDR administration pretend that FDR's power grab was actually consistent with what the Founders intended, and that sort of dishonest prevents people like me from ever seeing any subsequent comment the expansionists make as having any credibility whatsoever.
So, the expansionists should concede FDR was dishonest and we will then admit that his dishonesty is now the law of the land
Insulting me does not negate a single thing I said. All it does is give evidence that you have no argument against my points.
a couple weeks ago I quoted the entire A I, Sec 8 and explained that there is no such power no matter how one twists the words. even using language mutation as silly as say (shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements) we cannot find any such power
The fear is palpable among the gun-toters....
its right where?..list it for me please give me which clause...not section of the constitution.
are you saying it maybe the power " To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"...LOL
its sad and extremely poor, by making a statement saying "its right there" and producing nothing!
what points.....they are all rundown nubs, from being run over by people with facts.
Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.
sorry..... but your case in impotent!....
Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.
a gun trembler is a term I have coined for milquetoast fellows who show fear over peaceful neighbors, citizens, patriots and over civilians who are lawfully able to keep and bear arms and choose to do so.
yes it is the same, you say its there..fine cut and paste it please....i know its not hard to do...however you refuse to do it, because you know their is no such clause.
so he says without benefit of example to back up his talk.
It sounds more like Don Knotts in in that movie where he played a pretend gunfighter.
I have read that section thousands of times
cannot find such a power
no one else did for 130 years either
It has not changed since the last fifteen times we went through this.
And to think the nation has been around for 225 plus years. Somehow someway the math seems to work against your argument.
yes it is the same, you say its there..fine cut and paste it please....i know its not hard to do...however you refuse to do it, because you know their is no such clause.