We have restrictions on a "shall not be infringed" right??? Like someone said. the frog has been boiling for decades
CMMG joins LEO Boycott
- Thread starter Blades
- Start date
- Status
4th Amendment by the TSA.
PHP:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizedPlease explain me how sending me through a full body scanner is not infringing the 4th amendment? Even though there is no physical contact during the search, why am I considered as a potential terrorist till cleared by the TSA?
Yes, I cannot open carry in Florida. I consider it unconstitutional as there should not be any limits on how I carry my firearms!
I can not posses an assault rifle without that government knows about it
Who is terminating that? It is a court, what if some anti gun people in that court roule that a law is constitutional while it is actually not. Will you then just accept it because they know best? Or will you use your own judgment?
Yes they are, but politics try to limit it.
That those not mean that they can not turn on their own people.
That is how it should be, but looking what is going on in Washington.. Are you sure about that?
That is not true as you have the right to disobey if a government is not constitutional
Majorlk
Member
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! I don't agree with that at all. Any such infringements are called prior restraint and courts have repeatedly ruled that IS illegal.
You are doing a mistake!
A convicted sex offender infringed somebody's freedom and rights, therefore a court is determination how this misbehavior should be punished, usually be infringing one or more of his rights.
Why should the rights of a law abiding citizen be infringed when he did nothing wrong?
History is pretty clear, if we would have relied only on the courts we would either be speaking spanish or driving on the wrong side of the road.
As a resident of a state that is in the process of attempting to initiate knee-jerk, misguided legislation, I fully support ALL manufacturers that have taken this stand.
We need the support of our LEA's to let the politicians know that the threat is not from decent law-abiding citizens, but from criminals that will continue to get their hands on whatever weapons they desire to commit these heinous crimes, regardless of the gun laws on the books. The crimes they commit are already illegal as stated by laws on the books, so what makes anyone think that additional gun laws are going to keep criminals from creating crimes against American citizens.
RedNeck Jim
Member
I understand where some of you are. If you admit a right can be restricted (infringed) then your argument has to change. It is no longer black & white but an argument about degrees.
So answer my questions, please.
Can the government infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of a convicted felon?
Can the government infringe upon the rights of a 9 year old to purchase a gun?
If someone yelled "FIRE" in a crowded theater & some people were killed in the rush to exit, would you state that was free speech & not illegal?
Did you not also take an oath to (fight all enemies, Foreign and
Domestic) ??????
Time we quit being Sheeple and stand up for our rights
lest we become "Subjects" rather than Citizens.
Chuck
Dezfan
Member
These people as you refer to them swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States which is the Supreme law of the land.
They where not elected to do what they feel is right, they where elected to do the bidding of the people that elected them. The fact that we have allowed them to instead do as they see fit is part of the problem. We the People must hold them accountable and demand that they uphold Constitutional Law!
Have you researched the bills they are trying (and in some places getting passed) to pass?
In my home state of Missouri, state Representatives Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88 ) introduced House Bill 545.
Anti gun legislation that would turn many law-abiding gun owners into felons! HB 545 would ban the possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds.
HB 545 contains no grandfather clauses. Therefore, under HB 545, if you are currently in possession of the semi-automatic rifles and magazines outlined in this bill, you will have 90 days from the effective date of this legislation to surrender, destroy or remove these currently lawful items from Missouri. If you fail to do so, you could be charged with a Class C felony if this legislation is passed and enacted into law.
This in my eyes is treason as it usurps my Second Amendment Rights without question!
It is treasonous for them to even introduce such legislation as it Contradicts the second Amendment they swore an oath to protect and defend!
I don't see anyone suggesting that we dissolve the Government, only that we thepeople demand that they do our bidding and realize that they are not our rulers! We are not their subjects. We the People have consented to be Governed. This fact seems to be lost on our elected officials. Ultimately it is the people who deside whether or not any law is acceptable.
Not the Government, not the Courts, but the People!
Thomas Jefferson said it best.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
God Bless America!
Molan Labe!
They where not elected to do what they feel is right, they where elected to do the bidding of the people that elected them. The fact that we have allowed them to instead do as they see fit is part of the problem. We the People must hold them accountable and demand that they uphold Constitutional Law!
Have you researched the bills they are trying (and in some places getting passed) to pass?
In my home state of Missouri, state Representatives Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88 ) introduced House Bill 545.
Anti gun legislation that would turn many law-abiding gun owners into felons! HB 545 would ban the possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds.
HB 545 contains no grandfather clauses. Therefore, under HB 545, if you are currently in possession of the semi-automatic rifles and magazines outlined in this bill, you will have 90 days from the effective date of this legislation to surrender, destroy or remove these currently lawful items from Missouri. If you fail to do so, you could be charged with a Class C felony if this legislation is passed and enacted into law.
This in my eyes is treason as it usurps my Second Amendment Rights without question!
It is treasonous for them to even introduce such legislation as it Contradicts the second Amendment they swore an oath to protect and defend!
I don't see anyone suggesting that we dissolve the Government, only that we thepeople demand that they do our bidding and realize that they are not our rulers! We are not their subjects. We the People have consented to be Governed. This fact seems to be lost on our elected officials. Ultimately it is the people who deside whether or not any law is acceptable.
Not the Government, not the Courts, but the People!
Thomas Jefferson said it best.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
God Bless America!
Molan Labe!
smithman 10
US Veteran
You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. So did I.
You did not swear to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Remember that always.
Well unless you kick in some $$$ to keep this forum running, the owners take funds from where they can get them.It costs money to run this place. Besides the anti ads aren't viewed favorably around here......except by like minded anti's perhaps.
If you want to contribute to the operations of the forum, contact Handejector.
RedNeck Jim,
Thanks for making this point throughout this thread. I've been a little disheartened lately with talk (here and elsewhere) of LEO's refusing to enforce laws that are unconstitutional. True, LEO's take an oath to defend the Constitution, however, one of the most fundamental principals underlying our Constitution is the separation of powers among the branches of government. Simply put, the job of LEOs is to enforce the law, not interpret it. The executive branch does not have the discretion to determine whether a law is constitutional or not...only the judicial branch can do that. So, an LEOs oath to defend the Constitution is really to defend the Constitution as it is interpreted by the courts, not as it is interpreted by LEOs.
Related to this is the idea that for a legislator or an executive to pass or propose a law that may ultimately be deemed unconstitutional is in itself some kind of treasonous or impeachable act. That's just a basic misunderstanding of how our government works. Legislators pass laws, courts interpret them and executives enforce them.
The irony that many vocal gun rights advocates espouse such patriotism and love for the American way, yet at the same time demonstrate fundamental misunderstanding or disdain of the principles underlying our form of government is not lost on the left.
RedNeck Jim
Member
So who is the domestic "enemy" you want me to fight? You think everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy to the state? I am not worried about a radical that tries to push their agenda using the rule of law... no matter how disgusting it is to me. I do worry about radicals who talk of disobeying the law.
Of course you should stand up for your rights & beliefs. But understand in our great country. others who believe differently can do the same.
Sir you are making a mistake. My freedom shall not infringe anybody's freedom, rights or welfare.
A convicted felon's right can be infringed as he actually infringed somebody's freedom, rights or welfare. Therefore a court took a decision based on the current laws on how to punish that person by infringing his rights. By committing the crime he took the risk to lose some crimes.
If you want a 9year old to have the same rights as an adult then the same liabilities should apply including imprisonment.
I guess your answer will be that a 9year old is not able to acknowledge all the liabilities, and Sir your are correct about that. Therefore they do not have same rights.
Somebody yelling fire in a theater is infringing somebody's right of welfare and security if there is no hazard.
You are totally allowed to scream fire but you are liable for the outcome.
In case the executive branch sees a law as unconstitutional, they are actually enforcing the peoples rights which again is the oath they took. It would be a problem if they could rule if a law was constitutional and based on that infringe somebody's right
A domestic enemy is everybody who is engaging himself politically but not respecting one or more of the the responsibilities related to that mandate. Generally speaking somebody who took they oath to protect the constitution but now tries to infringe the rights of the people granted by the constitution.
The executive branch is not empowered to "see a law as unconstitutional." THAT is a violation of a fundamental constitutional concept and an LEO who enforces or doesn't enforce a law based on their own determination as to the constitutionality of that law has just broken their oath to defend the Consitution.
We don't want LEOs determining what is constitutional or not...that is a path to a true police state.
A domestic enemy is ANYONE who attempts to subvert the
Constitution and or Bill of Rights of these United States sir.
If you choose to label me as a "Radical" so be it.
There we're more than a few "Radicals" who stood on the walls
fighting the Red Coats 200+ years ago to insure that this Nation would be free from tyranny and oppression.
So i feel i would be in good company.
You can do as your head/heart tells you as well.
However cowering under a rock and hoping for the best
is not my chosen option.
Chuck
would not be ruled by
- Status
Similar threads
