Defiant U.S. Sheriffs Push Gun Sanctuaries

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, and then said:

All the LEOs on my walking route know me and know I'm armed.  In fact, we've become quite chummy.  I buy them all Starbucks at Christmas    They stopped considering me strange after they saw me walking nights for a couple of years in a row.  Now they think of me as an extra pair of eyes who has their back on those dark, rural roads.  As long as they strive to protect our Constitutionally enumerated rights, they'll have my undying support.

Don't think they ever stopped,  They've just got use to you.  

[RoofGardener]

17 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

So? Just because fewer people live in rural areas doesn't mean their vote should be given more weight. They're outvoted, plain and simple. Move somewhere else. 

Not necessarily. It is PRECISELY because of the concept of the "Tyranny of Democracy" - where a minority can be permanantly out-voted -  that the US constitution created the Senate.

[RoofGardener]

19 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Welcome Princess.  You know you don't need a certain number of stars or a Saru given title over your avatar to begin biting people's heads off.   But if you can refrain, life is more fun.  Occasionally the desire might arise, but the heads you are tempted to bite off are usually empty and devoid of nourishment.

...

Brilliant ! 

[Gromdor]

Seems like another example relatively pointless political posturing. Seems like most of the laws effect sellers and have little to nothing to do with sheriffs.  The letting of people who are "Red Flagged" keep weapons is the only thing I really see them doing.  It's not like sheriffs go around confiscating guns unless you commit a crime.  I can see a situation where the DNR would take a weapon from an under-aged hunter before a sheriff does. They could just hand out gun permits without the background checks, I suppose.

[Princess Bride]

12 hours ago, F3SS said:

And we don't always agree with them but I made more than one statement. Care to clarify? 

It doesn't matter if you agree with them. I don't either, but the constitution always agrees with them.

What do you want me to clarify? Do you know about the Supreme Court's role or do I need to go over Marbury vs. Madison first before highlighting the precedent in question? It's tedious to assemble a list of cases but in the meantime, you can read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

I'll be back in a while.

[Big Jim]

32 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Seems like another example relatively pointless political posturing. Seems like most of the laws effect sellers and have little to nothing to do with sheriffs.  The letting of people who are "Red Flagged" keep weapons is the only thing I really see them doing.  It's not like sheriffs go around confiscating guns unless you commit a crime.  I can see a situation where the DNR would take a weapon from an under-aged hunter before a sheriff does. They could just hand out gun permits without the background checks, I suppose.

I think the whole thing is mainly symbolic.  Liberal politicians created sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, thereby undermining a key issue for conservatives.  So in response these conservative sheriffs create sanctuaries for guns, a key issue with liberals.  Both groups are trying to stick it to their adversaries by ignoring laws the other side favors.

[Princess Bride]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Not necessarily. It is PRECISELY because of the concept of the "Tyranny of Democracy" - where a minority can be permanantly out-voted -  that the US constitution created the Senate.

But we can uncreate it now. I honestly, think it's time. Maybe we can concoct a new formula for how many congresspeople and/or Senators are allocated to adopt a new system. Maybe some parliamentary features could help as well. Our government and constitution were always meant to change with certain parts being more flexible than others. Huge segments of the constitution have been changed by amendment or didn't really mean what they say. We don't have to be subject to a tyranny of a minority either. People need to stop being so self-centered (on both sides) and try to see others point of view once in a while. Maybe we need to care about others just a little instead of lording over others with our clout or guns. Essentially we need to resurrect the fine art of compromise again as well.

[Princess Bride]

52 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Seems like another example relatively pointless political posturing. Seems like most of the laws effect sellers and have little to nothing to do with sheriffs.  The letting of people who are "Red Flagged" keep weapons is the only thing I really see them doing.  It's not like sheriffs go around confiscating guns unless you commit a crime.  I can see a situation where the DNR would take a weapon from an under-aged hunter before a sheriff does. They could just hand out gun permits without the background checks, I suppose.

Just so long as both sides abstain from actual physical confrontation things can go on this way indefinitely.

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

But we can uncreate it now. I honestly, think it's time. 

i think some amendments need to go, like 14th, but i wont be advocating to remove it or change it, or start ripping apart constitution, it will lead to bunch of unintended consequences, and will end up in nothing  but even more opposition, and chaos. \

theory and real world are very different things, and we do not live in theory

[aztek]

17 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The anger may be welling up but I don't think another Civil War is possible.  At the time of the first civil war all parties were nearly equally armed.  A group of farmers and a group of soldiers were separated mainly by uniforms and discipline.  They all carried the same single shot muzzle loading rifles.  Today the Federal Government and the various agencies hold all the cards.  Remember all that military equipment that was being given to police departments a few years ago?  An angry group of armed citizens has no chance going up against the government.  This may lead to guerilla warfare and domestic terrorism but I doubt it would ever reach the level of changing anything.

well, not true, it was not so much about winning, but in case of... gvmnt will have population who will resist or die, and gvmnt will get dead population, not obedient slaves, and many many of their enforcers dead. it was basically MAD of the time.,  but today people will not die for freedom, they will bend over and obey, liberal mindset is at work here.

 

[Princess Bride]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

i think some amendments need to go, like 14th, but i wont be advocating to remove it or change it, or start ripping apart constitution, it will lead to bunch of unintended consequences, and will end up in nothing  but even more opposition, and chaos. \

theory and real world are very different things, and we do not live in theory

I definitely disagree with that. Remember, when you take away the rights of others you also take your own. Actually, that's just terrible of you! Maybe you want to live under a dictator in a police state...

Edited March 5, 2019 by Princess Bride

[aztek]

7 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

I definitely disagree with that. Remember, when you take away the rights of others rights you also take your own. Actually, that's just terrible of you! Maybe you want to live under a dictator in a police state...

but you yourself said it is time to uncreate constitution. which means taking rights away. so it's ok when you want to do it, but terrible when i mention the same? 

also please explain how not wanting to rip apart constitution is terrible, and where i implied that i want to live under a dictator in a police state..

Edited March 5, 2019 by aztek

[Princess Bride]

Well here is some precedent. I'm sure there is much more but this is what I dug up today.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for non citizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service's regulations regarding the release of alien unaccompanied minors did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Flores

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children in the United ... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvydas_v._Davis

[Princess Bride]

11 minutes ago, aztek said:

but you yourself said it is time to uncreate constitution. which means taking rights away. so it's ok when you want to do it, but terrible when i mention the same? 

also please explain how not wanting to rip apart constitution is terrible, and where i implied that i want to live under a dictator in a police state..

4

No, that is not what it means. Absolutely not. It would be a compromise if done correctly and everyone would get more rights. Don't be douche just because you like to argue. There is nothing to argue about really. Do either of us have power to change anything? No!

[aztek]

and what exactly is it supposed to show or prove??  it is about post 63

Edited March 5, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

No, that is not what it means. Absolutely not. It would be a compromise if done correctly and everyone would get more rights. Don't be douche just because you like to argue. There is nothing to argue about really. Do either of us have power to change anything? No!

now i have no idea what you meant, so what exactly did you mean by it is time to uncreate constitution???

btw i was not even arguing with you yet.

Edited March 5, 2019 by aztek

[Princess Bride]

14 minutes ago, aztek said:

also please explain how not wanting to rip apart constitution is terrible, and where i implied that i want to live under a dictator in a police state..

3

This constitution was writen to appeal to farmers with squirel guns for the benefit of wealthy aristocrats and bankers. There were no women or minorities in that convention and got no say. That has changed and will continue to change. It would be akin to trying to maintain a fuedal society's rules and way of life in our modern age. Look at Evangelical Christians. They literally apply bronze age morals and rules to modern people and situations and cause tremendous harm to many people in the process. The same goes for the Constitution. 

Here's Thomas Jefferson on the matter, which I don't completely agree with.

“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/jefferson-19-year-cycle-for-an-expiration-of-the-constitution/

[Princess Bride]

Here is the best article I could find on the rights of illegal aliens while in U.S.jurisdictionn. It lists them, their sources, and how they are applied in practice. What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

This article has more precedent cited: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, Princess Bride said:

It doesn't matter if you agree with them. I don't either, but the constitution always agrees with them.

What do you want me to clarify? Do you know about the Supreme Court's role or do I need to go over Marbury vs. Madison first before highlighting the precedent in question? It's tedious to assemble a list of cases but in the meantime, you can read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

I'll be back in a while.

So a quick read shows me that this case states the Constitution is the law. Pretty sure I said that. Either way, I said a few different things and you aren't being specific about which point you're arguing. So no clarification I guess.

[aztek]

17 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

This constitution was writen to appeal to farmers with squirel guns for the benefit of wealthy aristocrats and bankers. There were no women or minorities in that convention and got no say. That has changed and will continue to change. It would be akin to trying to maintain a fuedal society's rules and way of life in our modern age. Look at Evangelical Christians. They literally apply bronze age morals and rules to modern people and situations and cause tremendous harm to many people in the process. The same goes for the Constitution. 

Here's Thomas Jefferson on the matter, which I don't completely agree with.

“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/jefferson-19-year-cycle-for-an-expiration-of-the-constitution/

i completely disagree.

[F3SS]

There's really no argument to be had with anybody who wants to disband the Constitution due to it's age or that it's inherently racist. They simply do not understand it well enough to appreciate it's genius and importance. Or... They do and they hate how it restricts power over the people. In either case, they're hopeless.

[Princess Bride]

12 minutes ago, F3SS said:

So a quick read shows me that this case states the Constitution is the law. Pretty sure I said that. Either way, I said a few different things and you aren't being specific about which point you're arguing. So no clarification I guess.

You said that illegal aliens didn't have rights. I made several posts explaining how they do. Now if those posts went over your head then that isn't my problem.

[Princess Bride]

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

There's really no argument to be had with anybody who wants to disband the Constitution due to it's age or that it's inherently racist. They simply do not understand it well enough to appreciate it's genius and importance. Or... They do and they hate how it restricts power over the people. In either case, they're hopeless.

You forgot to mention that it's sexist also.

[aztek]

it's not sexist at all.  feel free to show us how it undermines any sex, race, or religion.

[F3SS]

8 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

You said that illegal aliens didn't have rights. I made several posts explaining how they do. Now if those posts went over your head then that isn't my problem.

They have rights to be treated humanely and to due process. They do not get to enjoy full constitutional rights. They do not have a right to enter illegally and stay here.

6 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

You forgot to mention that it's sexist also.

It's initial imperfections were product of it's time and they've been worked out long ago. As it stands, it's as perfect as it gets. Aslo, it's not going anywhere so you might as well come to terms with that.