RunRyder RC
 6  Topic Subscribe
WATCH  5 pages [ <<    <     2      3     ( 4 )     5     NEXT    >> ] 1337 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Thunder Power RC
koppter

Senior Heliman

Moreno Valley, California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

just an aside, but there's not a shred of evidence that Washington ever uttered those lines. How about I get a picture of trump, and then simply put "Do the right thing - vote for Clinton."

I really don't get the need to create pejorative labels against someone whose only sin is a different political philosophy.

yeah, yeah, we all get that you just can't wait for the day when the government comes knocking on your door to seize your liberty and you will be standing there locked and loaded. yawn.

08-11-2016 03:19 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
spaceman spiff

Key Veteran

Tucson

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Not a shred of evidence he did not say that.. "..shall not be infringed" might be a hint on what the folks were thinking. Yawn..

Seems you don't understand the first thing about what those documents are.

Bathroom guidance from the White house... was it helpfull, or have you been able to sort it out for yourself?

You can not teach a crab to walk straight.

08-11-2016 03:49 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
tadawson

Elite Veteran

Lewisville, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

@koppter - Or, we can go with what the founders intended, and ignore thr libtarrd viewpoint:

1) The house/senate create laws.
2) Yhe executive branch oversees enforcement/implementation.
3) The supreme court rules on *legality* of the laws, sending any need for changes back to the house/senate.
4) The constitution is only altered in form and content by it's defined process, and any other issues described followw the process above.

"Interpretation" is nothing more that the means the Dimmies use to fleece the sheeple into allowing them to violate laws . . . Show me one section of the constitution that states that it is not to be considered a literal document, and that the meaning can be altered at a whim without following the prescribed process. Why have such a rigid process if any Dimtard can choose for itself what the meaning is? Utterly without merit to those not working with 'libtard logic' . . .

Friends don't let friends become electrotarded . . . .

08-11-2016 04:08 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
koppter

Senior Heliman

Moreno Valley, California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

i would suggest you read Marbury vs Madison, the seminal case defining the judicial function of the SC. Beyond, that you really don't have a clue and I have no interest in trading insults.

08-11-2016 07:45 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
tadawson

Elite Veteran

Lewisville, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gad, the libtard delusionism just pours out of this one . . . and if they had intended it to be flexible, they would not have had such a stringent amendment procedure.

And the part you overlook is that yes, the SC is granted yes/no power over law, but in the founding documents, no power to author or amend - just the power to request of those who have the power to make corrections.

And had you had civics before the libbies baked all the falsified BS into it, you might know this as well . . . but alas, it appears that you are more interested in fairy tales, fabrications, and unicorn farts than what the founders intended. Your case cite simply documents a perversion, not a founding tenet . . .

Friends don't let friends become electrotarded . . . .

08-11-2016 07:51 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Shall we go with Hillary's interpretation of the 2A, and say that it is compatible with UK/AUS style gun control?

It's either infringed, or not. In the UK, it's DEFINITELY infringed. So then how can she be both right and wrong? Hint - she can't. She's wrong.

So let's not pretend "interpretation" doesn't mean "read it how I want to in order to nullify it."

Look, if you don't like the 2A, fine. Repeal it. But use the proper process. An amendment cannot be nullified by court. That's NOT what the Constitution says. It's amended by 2/3 majority vote, ratified by 3/4 of the states. Or a convention. Not by 5 activist judges on a court. My God how can you not see the problem with Bill of Rights nullification power in so few hands?

Oh BTW, the court has already ruled for individual ownership, and use for self defense. Long ago, they ruled against short barrel shotguns because they weren't a legitimate weapon for military use. Basically they demanded that the weapon owned have military application. Still think it's about hunting? There's a lot of other cases that show that for 230 years the court was never astonished at private ownership. Think a new activist court can just sweep all the legislative history under the carpet and no one will be the wiser?

This is a very dark period in history. "Reasonable restrictions" to rights. That is not compatible with "Shall not be infringed." Hillary is very dangerous. What's reasonable today will be unreasonable tomorrow. Look at the incremental approach the UK took, to where gun ownership is incredibly infringed. This is what they've wanted for a long time. They've gone after long guns, short guns, handguns, big guns. Now it's semiautomatic (BTW, this covers every handgun but revolvers to anyone who knows what the term semi-auto even means.)

They are very clear in their objective. If it shoots a projectile they are against it. And they stick their foot in the door any way they can. They have tried everything in the book. And now they are almost done moving their chesspieces.

What, do you suppose, they will do once only THEY have the guns? Continue to rule without corruption, violence, and whatnot? Have you ever READ any history? Do not underestimate the human proclivity to tyranny. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only check on tyranny is power in the PEOPLE'S hands. Without any force, there is no true power in people's hands.

Without arms, we could fall under the rule of the powerlusted elites, who rub elbows talking about how to subdue peoples all over the world. We could be under the control of people such as the CIA deputy who has no respect for human life. The thought of a monopolization of deadly force in hands such as these should give you CHILLS.

Tories, I tell you. Tories everywhere.

08-11-2016 08:05 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Witch.Duk

Heliman

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Timely article on the the 2nd amendment...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/polit...trnd/index.html

For the record, I support the 2nd amendment, but not the NRA. I'm a gun owner with a carry permit that I exercise regularly.

Res ipsa loquitur

08-11-2016 08:28 PM
PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

To find the militia, you need only but look into a mirror.

Regardless of that. It's irrelevant. No military or militia service is needed. The preamble to the second does NOTHING to negate the rest of it. Let me illustrate, suppose I state:

A well educated core of scientists, being necessary to the technological prospering of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does such a statement mean you must be a scientist to read? NO!

Need one even be well educated? NO!

Does this statement allow any restrictions on reading, based upon the preamble? NO!!

The left's focus doesn't work. The part talking about the "RIGHT" is right next to "OF THE PEOPLE." The part talking about KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is also next to "PEOPLE." The only place regulated militia shows up is in the preamble, where it has as little ability to nullify the remainder as my educated scientist clause does above.

It doesn't state "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" NOW DOES IT?

"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."

Read it. As it is written. If you don't like it, repeal it. But it says what it says.

Stop distorting meaning to further your agenda. It's disgusting.

08-11-2016 08:35 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Also, notice the wording.

"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."

Read carefully, and you'll notice, THE 2A DOES NOT ACTUALLY BESTOW THE RIGHT AT ALL! It simply says hands off the pre-existing right.

The 2A doesn't give you that right. It is a presupposed right.
You already have it. It simply tells government HANDS OFF.

Read it. AS WRITTEN. Take all spin off of it and SEE what it says.

08-11-2016 08:47 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
dilberteinstein

Heliman

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Aaron29

Also, notice the wording.
Wording is everything.

Do not underestimate the abilities of the left to be creative.

Something fails, just change the wording.

90% of life is "showing up"

08-11-2016 11:38 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They did it in 1984. They did it in Animal Farm. Why the heck not.

I'm not interested in the fact that they are doing it. I'm interested in why so many are just rolling over and believing it.

08-12-2016 12:13 AM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
RMSLINKERS

Senior Heliman

Audubon, Minnesota

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A fool and their second amendment shall soon be departed . What does that say about Hillary voters?.

If it isn't beating the air up it isn't flying

08-14-2016 01:49 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
pctomlin

Senior Heliman

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Useful Idiots.

Why is it someone so bad at being in charge......... wants to be in charge so bad?

08-14-2016 02:45 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Jerry K

Key Veteran

Houston Area

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

For the record, I support the 2nd amendment, but not the NRA. I'm a gun owner with a carry permit that I exercise regularly.
Witch, I am curious what you have against the NRA?

Is it the fact they are trying to uphold the 2nd?
Is it because they are standing up to the politicians?
Is it because they want to allow you to protect yourself?

Watch at YouTube

Watch at YouTube

The Hildabeast says she will shut down the NRA which is Public Enemy #1

Avoid the 'default' settings in life, Fat Dumb and Poor!!!

08-14-2016 05:26 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
RMSLINKERS

Senior Heliman

Audubon, Minnesota

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Hildabeast thinks all of our rights are open to her regulation as she has stated in her speeches. Think about how that will work for you. She and all her rich supporters are above it all as we can plainly see. Do as I say not as I do or you'll pay the price depending who you are.

If it isn't beating the air up it isn't flying

08-15-2016 03:01 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Witch.Duk

Heliman

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Not so much against the NRA, I just believe they have become far too powerful as a lobbyist.

Also, while I understand everyone has concerns regarding gun control, I do believe reasonable people can have constructive discussions. The NRA's stance is that any conversation is off limits, period.

Res ipsa loquitur

08-15-2016 05:57 PM
PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
spaceman spiff

Key Veteran

Tucson

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There realy should be no need for NRA.
The politicians make it necessary.

You can not teach a crab to walk straight.

08-15-2016 06:28 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Your pick Hillary wants gun companies to be responsible for the misuse of their products. We're not talking about being responsible for manufacturer defect and malfunction injuries. They are already liable for those. What Clinton wants to do is expand their liability to include intentional misuse of their product.

What do you think about that? If a person intentionally runs someone over in their car, do you think Ford should be sued? If a person gets drunk and beats up his wife, do you think Coors should be sued? Then why do you support dragging down the gun industry for the misuse of their product?

Do you know what that would do to product pricing?

Do you not realize that this is specifically designed to hurt the gun industry and thus the ready and affordable availability of guns to the common people?

Do you not realize how this is effectively an infringement?

These are the kind of things where the NRA steps in and protects the gun industry. And I fully back them. And unless you want your guns to triple in price due to being misused by a few assholes out there, you'd support the NRA on this, too.

But like your supposedly neutral stance on politics, I have a feeling your true feelings about guns are negative. Any responsible gun owner/enthusiast can clearly see that punishing the industry for misuse of their product will hurt theirself. You act more like someone who could not care less what happens to the industry, and thus the availability of guns to common people. You act like someone who hates guns.

It reminds me of the people who are patently racist, but then try to get out of it by claiming to "have a black friend." In much the same fashion, you can't just be antigun and then say "but I own one," when you are called out on supporting very antigun positions.

Look. The NRA is empowered by its base. Only the left thinks it's all about the gun industry and there's no real public backing behind them.

Keep guns affordable by keeping frivolous lawsuits (designed to destroy the industry) from being legal - or are you some sort of elitist that thinks only the rich should be able to protect themselves? That sort of hypocrisy I've grown quite used to with leftists.

As a supposed gun enthusiast, you are either clueless or misrepresenting yourself. Between this, and your supposed neutral stance on politics. I just can't even. You sir, are quite possibly the most disingenuous person I've ever come across.

08-15-2016 06:35 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
Witch.Duk

Heliman

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No, I don't support any of the examples you cite.

My issue with the NRA is the overwhelming power they have over politicians. Most politicians these days wouldn't take a position against the NRA for any reason, even when they disagree.

As for being disingenuous, you're the guy who jumps on and off the Trump bandwagon every other day.

Res ipsa loquitur

08-15-2016 07:07 PM
PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You say you do not support this. And yet there it is, and it is her position. She will make it happen. Supporting Hillary is supporting this.

As for my disingenuity - I've never swung as far as you think. I've only swung between conservative voter and disinterested voter.

OK then back to the original question, what SPECIFIC STANCE of the NRA do you oppose? Because when questioned, I see none so far.

08-15-2016 07:09 PM
PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH  5 pages [ <<    <     2      3     ( 4 )     5     NEXT    >> ] 1337 views POST REPLY
AlignRC Scorpion Power
 Print TOPIC Advertisers 

 6  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, September 28 - 6:05 pm - Copyright © 2000-2016 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies