Donald Trump running for president

ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The law states if you have been convicted of an offence where the sentence is over a year in prison, then your right to owning firearms is lost. The constitution doesn't set those boundaries, the law does. So now we're not just talking murderers, but also other felonies and state offences that fit the bracket.
Alot of these laws where people are in prison for over a year are victimless crimes, thereby these laws are forfeited to the discussion. For example selling drugs. These people in no way broke any Constitutional laws, as long as two consenting adults agree to the transaction there is nothing wrong here, unless counterfeit drugs or counterfeit money was part of the transaction.

But yes there are laws but many of the laws are illegal and should be abolished, you cant gave un-Constutitional laws which this is what the Founding Fathers predicted would happen and when government goes to far thats why we have the 2A.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The point of the above is to highlight that by strict definition, people's constitutional rights are not absolute, and can be challenged in law.
Again, it can be infringed by law, just because something is law doesnt mean its Constutitional. Again again, 2A, 2A....thats why we have it. Of course there are systems of due process and we live in a democracy so 2A is last and final option.

And a reminder, the USA is a Republic, not a democracy....if 70% vote to take our rights away its still criminal.

We are set up to be a freedom loving dictatorship, and thats how I love it and want to protect it.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The Constitution doesnt grant rights, they protect our natural rights. The law is you cant take people's natural rights.
A lot of the natural laws come with caveats.

You have a right to preserve your own life, until you take someone else's.

You have a right to liberty, unless that infringes on someone else's right to liberty.

Etc.

That's what I mean by nuance. Where does your liberty end and mine begin (mine being a fellow citizen, not me personally).
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Again, nuanced and argued in court.
Courts overturn eachother, its not a perfect system. Courts have debates. Many laws have been passed 5-4 in the Supreme Court, wtf does that mean??? It means Courts can be very biased. Just because a law is voted in 5-4 does not mean its Constitutional.

Your being dogmatic about laws, Im being dogmatic about the Constitution.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
A lot of the natural laws come with caveats.

You have a right to preserve your own life, until you take someone else's.

You have a right to liberty, unless that infringes on someone else's right to liberty.

Etc.

That's what I mean by nuance. Where does your liberty end and mine begin (mine being a fellow citizen, not me personally).
This doesnt make any sense at all. Feel like your trying to hard here to create something out of nothing, LOL
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Courts overturn eachother, its not a perfect system. Courts have debates. Many laws have been passed 5-4 in the Supreme Court, wtf does that mean??? It means Courts can be very biased. Just because a law is voted in 5-4 does not mean its Constitutional.

Your being dogmatic about laws, Im being dogmatic about the Constitution.
Technically, it does. If SCOTUS upholds a law 5-4, then the law is upheld as constitutional. You may disagree with their interpretation, but SCOTUS has the final say.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
As one former member here stated, "to the slow folks at home" LOL

You have a right to your life and liberty, you dont have a right to take it from someone else.

Its really simple language here, but Constitutional Scholars like Bareback Obobo are masters of making things appear overly complicated and find loopholes to break their oaths of office.
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Courts overturn eachother, its not a perfect system. Courts have debates. Many laws have been passed 5-4 in the Supreme Court, wtf does that mean??? It means Courts can be very biased. Just because a law is voted in 5-4 does not mean its Constitutional.

Your being dogmatic about laws, Im being dogmatic about the Constitution.
Technically, it does. If SCOTUS upholds a law 5-4, then the law is upheld as constitutional. You may disagree with their interpretation, but SCOTUS has the final say.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Technically, it does. If SCOTUS upholds a law 5-4, then the law is upheld as constitutional. You may disagree with their interpretation, but SCOTUS has the final say.
Yes, you are right and as a law abiding citizen I have to live with it, but I will never ever accept it as Constitutional if I dont agree with it, fortunatly I live in a wonder country that allows me to be vocal about that and can participate in reversing that. But of course, the law is the law whether I like it or not.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
5himm
12,000 deaths vs 160,000. Yep, comparable.
You're assuming all the covid deaths are being reported acurately.....
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Again, it can be infringed by law, just because something is law doesnt mean its Constutitional. Again again, 2A, 2A....thats why we have it. Of course there are systems of due process and we live in a democracy so 2A is last and final option.

And a reminder, the USA is a Republic, not a democracy....if 70% vote to take our rights away its still criminal.

We are set up to be a freedom loving dictatorship, and thats how I love it and want to protect it.
All I'm saying is that it is nuanced, and open to interpretation - whether by yourselves or by law. You might not agree with the legal definition and interpret it differently, but that is what they uphold.

I just used 2A as the example because it is one most open for interpretation and that is up for debate. As it is a constitutional right, then I completely understand your willingness to defend it. I'd do the exact same thing. Even if I didn't own a gun, I'd support others rights to own one as per the constitution.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
5himm

You're assuming all the covid deaths are being reported acurately.....
Your meme hinges on things being recorded accurately, or at least as accurately as can be recorded.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Technically, it does. If SCOTUS upholds a law 5-4, then the law is upheld as constitutional. You may disagree with their interpretation, but SCOTUS has the final say.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Yes, you are right and as a law abiding citizen I have to live with it, but I will never ever accept it as Constitutional if I dont agree with it, fortunatly I live in a wonder country that allows me to be vocal about that and can participate in reversing that. But of course, the law is the law whether I like it or not.
You might accept it as being constitutional, but if you break the law then you will be held accountable
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
You might accept it as being constitutional, but if you break the law then you will be held accountable
with exceptions, i know of a few folks in seatle and portland.....
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
with exceptions, i know of a few folks in seatle and portland.....
Youd hope that, if even not immediately, people would be held to account at some stage for their actions.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The challenge will be finding the resources and time
i think the feds have arrested a few, but they were let out on bail....be surprised if many/any do any 'real' time.

as usual in one way or another the tax payer will foot the bill for this destruction. i have a feeling seatle/portland will be asking for a bailout.
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
i think the feds have arrested a few, but they were let out on bail....be surprised if many/any do any 'real' time.
Sentencing can be tricky. I know nothing about how the US prosecutes, but in NZ theres a whole range of factors that the judge must consider when handing down a sentence. Generally, if prison can be avoided, it is.

That can be super frustrating to deal with, but it is our reality.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
i think the feds have arrested a few, but they were let out on bail....be surprised if many/any do any 'real' time.

as usual in one way or another the tax payer will foot the bill for this destruction. i have a feeling seatle/portland will be asking for a bailout.
Oh, without a doubt the tax payer will pay. It sucks, but I doubt the looters and rioters combined could pull enough money to rectify any amount of destruction.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Sentencing can be tricky. I know nothing about how the US prosecutes, but in NZ theres a whole range of factors that the judge must consider when handing down a sentence. Generally, if prison can be avoided, it is.

That can be super frustrating to deal with, but it is our reality.
here too...it might be difficult for a jury in those cities to vote guilty, i think the general populace are afraid of the hooligans.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
here too...it might be difficult for a jury in those cities to vote guilty, i think the general populace are afraid of the hooligans.
Yeah. It is frustrating as a prosecutor to see people get a slap on the wrist for some pretty horrific offending, but we still take it as a win because otherwise you lose faith in the system.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Oh, without a doubt the tax payer will pay. It sucks, but I doubt the looters and rioters combined could pull enough money to rectify any amount of destruction.
i would be happy to see them working it off on weekends picking up trash along highways----
for the next 20 years. at least get something worthwhile out of them.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Yeah. It is frustrating as a prosecutor to see people get a slap on the wrist for some pretty horrific offending, but we still take it as a win because otherwise you lose faith in the system.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.
here it is dangerous when the justice system fails, we have guns...vigilante justice could become reality if things continue the way they are headed--i really would hate to see this happen, as i truly believe in law and order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
@ax1 i see cuomo is begging wealthy to come back to NYC?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
@ax1 i see cuomo is begging wealthy to come back to NYC?
Yeah I heard him say it on live stream yesterday. Tax the crap out of them until they run, and then they make up "tax free" zones around the state to lure them back in.
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Do you support the arming of people in jail or people released from prison for murdering children?
So let’s use your logic to freedom of speech. Should I be able to tell your significant other in very crude terms what I want to do to her after I tie you up and make you watch, them slit her throat in the process? So that should be protected under the first amendment? Try again
 
Woody

Woody

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
So let’s use your logic to freedom of speech. Should I be able to tell your significant other in very crude terms what I want to do to her after I tie you up and make you watch, them slit her throat in the process? So that should be protected under the first amendment? Try again
Rape and murder aren’t speech?
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
The point is Democtaic run cities are going to **** in this country. Not sure there is even anything to argue at this point....its a fact.
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
The point is Democtaic run cities are going to **** in this country. Not sure there is even anything to argue at this point....its a fact.
100% agree! It’s hard to believe that some of these cities have been ran by the Democratic Party for decades and continue to be ran into the ground. My opinion is the Democratic Party wants African Americans kept in the “hood” and give them as many handouts as they can get away with to guarantee votes. The media is all over Trump, but barely report on how the crime rate has increased in these cities, especially Chicago.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Yeah I heard him say it on live stream yesterday. Tax the crap out of them until they run, and then they make up "tax free" zones around the state to lure them back in.
lol...in the words of pink floyd-run, rabbit, run
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
The point is Democtaic run cities are going to **** in this country. Not sure there is even anything to argue at this point....its a fact.
100% agree! It’s hard to believe that some of these cities have been ran by the Democratic Party for decades and continue to be ran into the ground. My opinion is the Democratic Party wants African Americans kept in the “hood” and give them as many handouts as they can get away with to guarantee votes. The media is all over Trump, but barely report on how the crime rate has increased in these cities, especially Chicago.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
100% agree! It’s hard to believe that some of these cities have been ran by the Democratic Party for decades and continue to be ran into the ground. My opinion is the Democratic Party wants African Americans kept in the “hood” and give them as many handouts as they can get away with to guarantee votes. The media is all over Trump, but barely report on how the crime rate has increased in these cities, especially Chicago.
don't forget NYC...crime is up and climbing higher.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
Just heard Deblasio is going to set up military check points preventing "out-of-towners" from coming into the city...and he plans in strictly enforcing the quarantine laws

....its so ironic. this sounds much more fascist than the false narrative of police killing black people for no reason...yet, no one will protest this lol
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Just heard Deblasio is going to set up military check points preventing "out-of-towners" from coming into the city...and he plans in strictly enforcing the quarantine laws

....its so ironic. this sounds much more fascist than the false narrative of police killing black people for no reason...yet, no one will protest this lol
soon beblasio won't have to worry about out of towners...crime will be so high tourists will find other-safer places to visit.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
So let’s use your logic to freedom of speech. Should I be able to tell your significant other in very crude terms what I want to do to her after I tie you up and make you watch, them slit her throat in the process? So that should be protected under the first amendment? Try again
What lol.

Pretty sure kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment is a felon.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. It's pretty well understood that threats, slander, incitement and even non disclosure agreements are not covered under this right. I feel like people grossly misunderstand what a right to free speech is. Again, it is not an absolute right. If you dont believe me, try expressing your right to free speech by threatening the President. I guarantee any threat seen as legitimate will be held to account, and using your first amendment right won't protect you.

Also your example makes no sense to me. How exactly am I arguing for what you think I'm arguing for??
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Murder is action, rage could also be action. But maybe you’re missing the point as well.
What's this got to do with anything I've said. I'm not defending a prisoners or felons rights to owning a firearm, but rather challenging the term "shall not infringe".

The point was more that the law governs what the term "infringing" actually means, and when an action is determined to be or not to be infringing on a right. And that definition may or may not be what you interpret "infringing" to mean.
 
Last edited:
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Again, it can be infringed by law, just because something is law doesnt mean its Constutitional. Again again, 2A, 2A....thats why we have it. Of course there are systems of due process and we live in a democracy so 2A is last and final option.

And a reminder, the USA is a Republic, not a democracy....if 70% vote to take our rights away its still criminal.

We are set up to be a freedom loving dictatorship, and thats how I love it and want to protect it.
Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. A total democracy where literally every policy decision was put to a popular vote would still be a republic as long as there was no king or emporer.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Technically, it does. If SCOTUS upholds a law 5-4, then the law is upheld as constitutional. You may disagree with their interpretation, but SCOTUS has the final say.
Again, that's not reeeeally in the constitution, it's just something we've kind of put into practice over the years. In fact technically congress can declare a law outside of the courts' purview but I'm not sure that they've actually done it.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Again, that's not reeeeally in the constitution, it's just something we've kind of put into practice over the years. In fact technically congress can declare a law outside of the courts' purview but I'm not sure that they've actually done it.
i've never heard this before?
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
We do this every few weeks in this thread but I guess it's that time again.

If you look at the "worst cities," they're run by democrats.

If you look at the "best cities," they're also run by democrats.

If you look at the State level almost all the states that need more money from the Fed than they put in are red states.

Conclusion: Democrats are hit or miss at running cities but Republicans suck at running states and up being welfare queen states subsidized by blue states.
 
nostrum420

nostrum420

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
i've never heard this before?
Like I said, find me the place in the constitution where it directly says that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. You can point to some language in Article III but AFAIK there's nothing that directly grants the courts the power to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Like I said, find me the place in the constitution where it directly says that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. You can point to some language in Article III but AFAIK there's nothing that directly grants the courts the power to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional.
didn't john roberts cast the deciding vote for obamacare?

sorry, will continue this tomorrow, we are watching our sick granddaughter and i need to go.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. It's pretty well understood that threats, slander, incitement and even non disclosure agreements are not covered under this right. I feel like people grossly misunderstand what a right to free speech is. Again, it is not an absolute right. If you dont believe me, try expressing your right to free speech by threatening the President. I guarantee any threat seen as legitimate will be held to account, and using your first amendment right won't protect you.
This is pretty accurate in my eyes, finally agree on something in regards to the Constitution, LOL
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Just heard Deblasio is going to set up military check points preventing "out-of-towners" from coming into the city...and he plans in strictly enforcing the quarantine laws

....its so ironic. this sounds much more fascist than the false narrative of police killing black people for no reason...yet, no one will protest this lol
Shyt, if your going to break Habeus Corpus, you may as well have the military where its needed and thats the actual streets of NYC.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Like I said, find me the place in the constitution where it directly says that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. You can point to some language in Article III but AFAIK there's nothing that directly grants the courts the power to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional.
I think you're right. According to Cornell Law School, the constitution was interpreted in 1819 as giving the Supreme court the power to invalidate and state actions that interfere with the constitution. It isnt set out in the constitution itself, but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs Maryland
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. A total democracy where literally every policy decision was put to a popular vote would still be a republic as long as there was no king or emporer.
America is a Constitutional Republic though, not a democracy. Elected officials can only exert their powers under the rule of law, that being the Constitution.

What your talking about is a little different. In the US 100% can vote to take rights away under the Constitution but enabling it is a crime, and then we are no longer the USA as it was created. Well of course, they all wipe their azz with it but thats another story, lol

Personally I prefer our country remaining as a hardcore Republic rather than the democracy your talking about.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. A total democracy where literally every policy decision was put to a popular vote would still be a republic as long as there was no king or emporer.
Having the separation of powers and having the people the power to elect was set up only to protect and realistically slow down the deterioration of the Constitution as much as possible. But the elected leaders must follow the rule of law, take oath the preserve and protect the laws of our Republic.
 
Last edited:

Top