85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
The CDC is a government agency you genious. It is under the leardership of your beloved statist experts.
Help Support VMAX Forum:
No I read, and I'm probably sharper than you give me credit for...I just dont agree with it, because he wrote an OPINION....he didnt write a LAW. Let me make it easy for you...an opinion is an interpritation.
Earlier you tried to argue numbers...when I disproved that with facts, now you start throwing out opinions...as facts. Anything other than the actual law is an interpritation....be it from the US supreme court or down to the court system at the local level.
I have been looking for, but been unable to find, real meaningful numbers with these extenuations boiled off. Chicago being probly the best example of this numerical manipulation.....those terrifyingly high numbers of 'gun deaths' are, for the most part, bangers killing bangers! Pass all the gun control regs you want....those numbers won't change! Actually....the laws to curtail that type of violence are already written, those guns are illegal, the people using them are criminals....yet the violence continues!
And some seem to think writing more laws will somehow change this...I just don't get it! :ummm:
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution wasn't written to leave it open to interpretation, opinion, guesses or any other notion. It was a very simple statement of exactly what it means and it's timeless. Why do some have such a difficult time wrapping their heads around that. It means exactly what it says for as long as the United States is in existance. Get a Grip..
Amendment II
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.
Amendment II
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.
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
I understand the number manipulation game. it gets to the point of being worthless to use to get a handle of understanding. Citizens are killing each other and that needs to stop. How? That is the big question. But not having laws will not help either. Just today in S. CA. another mass shooting. Only this time it was someone driving down the freeway shooting people at random.
Amendment II
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.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY
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.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
This is a clue for you. Bottom line! When the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a decision based on THEIR INTERPRATATION of the Constitution that becomes the law of the land. You may not like it or agree with it but your opinion is worthless as the same as mine.
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Yes Dave, again, why do you remain silent about those beaten, stabbed, or strangled to death. How do you propose stopping the killers? Will you shake your fist angrily at them and shout at them to play nicely?? Will you accept any responsibility for the elderly, infirm, or for the women that are raped or killed due to your plan to render them helpless in defending themselves?
Of course you won't.
While we are at it, nobody is suggesting to not have laws. We have more laws than any other country, and it doesn't stop a maniac from killing.
Concealed carry permit holders are the most highly scrutinized honest people in our country. The have training, had their background checks verified, and wish to protect themselves and others against criminals. Your statist utopia can't allow that can it Dave?
Disarm the honest, leave the criminals on the streets to feed off of the weak eh Dave?
GREAT PLAN
Your right...citizens killing each other isn't right, but I don't believe having more laws helps either, Chicago and Mexico comes to mind. Are the laws that we currently in place being enforced adequately?
I think the ultimate problem is human nature...I do not believe that we as a species are beyond the killing for no reason stage. If someone really wants to kill you or do harm to your family...they will find a way. The first murder began with a rock.
Attachments
True....but they are the big dogs of the land....their opinion does count...most everyone else's.....dont.
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the US government works Dave, understandable since you likely spent all of your time studying Marx, Lenin, Guevara, Stalin, and Castro.
The Supreme Court rulling is law, your opinion is just an opinion. We can take it a step farther Dave, read the published writings of those that fought for, and created the constitution. They explicitly detail what the 2nd ammendment means, much to the chagrin of the statists that continue to lie to the uninformed about it pertaining to duck hunting.
The Constitution as we know it was slighted and in some peoples cases already thrown out with a law passed by Congress called The NDAA which covers this with some pretty sketchy wording. I took this from wikipedia the sections in question are pointed out 1021 1022. This law basically already gives the Government the right to search seize and detain any law abiding citizen with only needing to say "we have suspicions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism. The controversy was to their legal meaning and potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[12] and Senate sponsors[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[14][15] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[16][17][18][19][20] The detention powers currently face legal challenge.
Within the NDAA, numerous ambiguities exist with the federal government’s
method of identifying, classifying and detaining individuals deemed as
“terrorists”. The most objectionable clauses, however, reside within
Sections 1021 and 1022 (EOP, 2011[1]) (NDAA, 2011[2]). Specifically:
• The term “covered persons” is unnecessarily vague and offers no specific
protection or exclusion for citizens from unlawful seizures,
arrests, and/or confinement;
• The words “any person,” “belligerent act” or “hostilities” are
subjective and ambiguous, representing threats to US citizens right to free
speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of the press;
• “Detention under the law of war” is unenforceable as the U.S Congress
has not passed a declaration of war. Further, citizens held without charge
is a clear violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus doctrine;
• Any detainment “without trial” violates a US citizen’s right to a
speedy trial. In addition, an off-shore trial in a United Nations
international court (alluded to within the NDAA) is a violation of a
citizen’s right to a trial by one’s peers;
• Although NDAA White House and Senate sponsors maintain the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for
indefinite detention, the NDAA of 2012 “affirms” the federal government’s
authority to detain US citizens indefinitely and makes specific
provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
The detention provisions of the NDAA of 2012 (Sections 1021 and 1022) have
received critical attention by those who are concerned about the ever
growing scope of the President’s authority, including contentions that
“covered persons” may be held indefinitely.
So, unless we collectively assert to our Congress people that we do not agree, the ground work is already done to eradicate our Constitutional rights and take not only our guns away BUT OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH or anything else deemed “any person,” “belligerent act” or “hostilities”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism. The controversy was to their legal meaning and potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[12] and Senate sponsors[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[14][15] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[16][17][18][19][20] The detention powers currently face legal challenge.
Within the NDAA, numerous ambiguities exist with the federal government’s
method of identifying, classifying and detaining individuals deemed as
“terrorists”. The most objectionable clauses, however, reside within
Sections 1021 and 1022 (EOP, 2011[1]) (NDAA, 2011[2]). Specifically:
• The term “covered persons” is unnecessarily vague and offers no specific
protection or exclusion for citizens from unlawful seizures,
arrests, and/or confinement;
• The words “any person,” “belligerent act” or “hostilities” are
subjective and ambiguous, representing threats to US citizens right to free
speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of the press;
• “Detention under the law of war” is unenforceable as the U.S Congress
has not passed a declaration of war. Further, citizens held without charge
is a clear violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus doctrine;
• Any detainment “without trial” violates a US citizen’s right to a
speedy trial. In addition, an off-shore trial in a United Nations
international court (alluded to within the NDAA) is a violation of a
citizen’s right to a trial by one’s peers;
• Although NDAA White House and Senate sponsors maintain the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for
indefinite detention, the NDAA of 2012 “affirms” the federal government’s
authority to detain US citizens indefinitely and makes specific
provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
The detention provisions of the NDAA of 2012 (Sections 1021 and 1022) have
received critical attention by those who are concerned about the ever
growing scope of the President’s authority, including contentions that
“covered persons” may be held indefinitely.
So, unless we collectively assert to our Congress people that we do not agree, the ground work is already done to eradicate our Constitutional rights and take not only our guns away BUT OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH or anything else deemed “any person,” “belligerent act” or “hostilities”
If you look at the numbers...they have been falling since 06...I wonder if that is because of concealed carry? I think it is....because criminals will only prey on people that are weak....if you don't know who is carrying, then criminals will tend to leave them alone.
Attachments
And this is what scares me when my government says...."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
I think the following sums up "fact check.org"...
FactCheck.org is a surrogate mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, owned by the same liberal Annenberg Foundation that groomed the young Obama through his ACORN community rabble-rousing days in Chicago, and funded his failed education venture, the Annenberg Challenge, with Obama partner William Ayers.
Calling FactCheck.org an impartial gatekeeper of truth is like calling the ACLU an impartial defender of God given unalienable rights. The too things just don?t fit in the same sentence. Have you read the numerous left-wing books authored by FactCheck directors? Apparently not...
A nuetral source Dave???? Really??
Does your comment about "child gun deaths" include the 16 year old 225lb 6"3" tall "Child" whom has already murdered numerous times, committed rape, and sold heroin to 10 year olds down in the hood? Are we to weep for his innocence? poor kid was just trying to earn enough for a sandwhich.....
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Partially, and the three stikes laws. Accidental gun deaths are at their lowest levels in decades. Dave will deny it though, as there was no help from the statists to apply any of the true causes here.
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Partially, and the three strikes laws. Accidental gun deaths are at their lowest levels in decades. Dave will deny it though, as there was no help from the statists to apply any of the true causes here.
That was oddly enough the exact wording that the military and police used when during the Katrina debaucle they were going house to house kicking in the doors and and saying " Does anyone need help here??!! ARE THERE ANY WEAPONS HERE" then they proceed to search the home and unarm the residents against their will. This is all in the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Well, at 85 billion printed each month I supose you got it, or will have it, soon enough.
I'm going way out on a limb here Dave....I think you may find there are plenty of laws already on the books that this individual totally ignored during his violent rampage. Having a few more certainly would not have prevented this tragedy....I don't believe.
But, I could be wrong.....:confused2:
Similar threads
