Defiant U.S. Sheriffs Push Gun Sanctuaries

[aztek]

well we could improve on it,  we can remove automatic birth citizenship, and make it that at least 1 parent needs to be a citizen for child to be one, it is a fair correction that reflects times. 

i would also remove militia clause completely, so no one gets confused who has a right to own guns,  cuz now even when USSC settled it long ago, people still bring up militia argument,   seems like people getting dumber, so correction to reflect times is needed here as well.

 

[F3SS]

8 minutes ago, aztek said:

well we could improve on it,  we can remove automatic birth citizenship, and make it that at least 1 parent needs to be a citizen for child to be one, it is a fair correction that reflects times. 

i would also remove militia clause completely, so no one gets confused who has a right to own guns,  cuz now even when USSC settled it long ago, people still bring up militia argument,   seems like people getting dumber, so correction to reflect times is needed here as well.

 

That's a good point. 

[Hawken]

Great idea. My state has a bill proposal to ban more guns than just the AR-15. The local gun shop owners is taking 2 charter busses to the

state capital to argue against it. The proposal calls for a ban on all high capacity guns. The fight will be that law abiding gun owners are no

threat to society with these guns so high capacity is irrelevant.

[aztek]

11 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Great idea. My state has a bill proposal to ban more guns than just the AR-15. The local gun shop owners is taking 2 charter busses to the

state capital to argue against it. The proposal calls for a ban on all high capacity guns. The fight will be that law abiding gun owners are no

threat to society with these guns so high capacity is irrelevant.

they banned any rifle\mag with more than 10 rounds in nys many years ago.  in nyc they banned every rifle that holds more than 5 rounds, and banned every semi auto.  no outright confiscation necessary. yet crime stats did not change a bit. cuz people almost never commit crimes with registered guns. regardless of action, caliber, or magazine capacity

but there are some loopholes, rifles with none detachable mags can be altered by certified gunsmith to hold 5 or less, and they become legal, 

Edited March 5, 2019 by aztek

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

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

The Starbucks gift card helped!  

[Vorg]

The second amendment, keeping our government in check since December 15, 1791.

[aztek]

it only works when people are willing to fight for their freedom, guns themselves do not guarantee anything, nowadays only small portion of the people value freedom more than life. and they are made into terrorists by liberals. i don't think 2nd amendment will be of any use to keep gvmnt in check,  in last 30 years or so liberal school systems indoctrinated kids into becoming obedient slaves.  however nowadays 2nd is just as valid, but for different reasons.

Edited March 5, 2019 by aztek

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

i completely disagree.

The Constitution was written with provisions to change it when enough of the people wanted it to change.  I have no problem with that.  The changes being demanded by most Progressives do not envision going that route.  They want a quick, bare consensus and then change it for all the nation.  THAT way lies our destruction.  

 

1 hour ago, Princess Bride said:

This constitution was writen to appeal to farmers with squirel guns for the benefit of wealthy aristocrats and bankers.

The Constitution was written by men who faced imprisonment, poverty and death if they failed to win.  Those same men were well read in the literature of the enlightenment and they understood the most important thing about governments and men.  Power corrupts every time and it must be controlled.  That document is the only thing that has secured this nation for 200+ years.  When it becomes unimportant to this nation, this nation will fail and fall.  Good luck with what you have left. 

[Tatetopa]

23 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

You seriously have no idea how p***ed off the country people in Illinois are. This isn't about immigration to them. It's about all their money being siphoned into Chicago while their schools fall apart and they continue to do without adequately developed infrastructure. Beyond the money drain, it's also about their way of life to them. I think if people get pushed hard enough on those kinds of issues that it could get ugly like it did during the Clinton years. Well it already has. Remember those ranchers that holed up at the bird sanctuary? They were actually in the right and if I remember correct, the courts eventually found in their favor also.

To me, that is one of the most interesting comments on this thread and probably deserves its own.  How do all of those rights and needs get met?  I know they are real, I live in a city now, but also spent 30 years near small logging towns and a  "town" or two with nothing more than a gas station, food store/ cafe and feed store.  I think that is why some small communities fight to become towns and large cities fight to incorporate them, control of taxes.  My son spent some of his early years in schools with less than a hundred students in all grades 1-5.

How do you get good schools in rural areas or provide infrastructure?  Putting aside corruption for a moment, how do resources get allocated from larger governments; county, start, and federal?  Even in what we call small towns, local businesses are struggling and community hospitals and clinics are closing.  

Not on topic.  Back to the current thread.

 

 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours 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.

Interesting to mention the genius of the framers.  They were some of the most brilliant thinkers of their day, not backwards colonial yokels.  Jefferson and Franklin among others were the toast of the European leaders in thought about humanity, rights of man, and limits of power.  Their approach was radical at the time, they created a new form of government based on a basic philosophy of human rights and idealism.  One might even say theory.  We do live in a world of theory, their theory brought into the real world.  Piney might add that some of the founding concepts were adopted from the Indians encountered by the colonials.  They were  the freest and most egalitarian people the colonists struggling to get out of the yoke of feudal nobility had encountered. 

They were the liberals of their day.  The European kings and elite nobility were the conservatives.  And most amazing and honorable of all, they were not carried away by hubris.  They did not conclude that their brilliance was the pinnacle of humanity and must remain inviolate forever.  I was not familiar with the quote attributed to Jefferson above.  He seems to have remained a radical and a liberal, with an element of distrust for any government.  Even one he helped establish. 

[RavenHawk]

22 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. 

It's close to 50-50.  But being out voted is not the point.  It's providing as full of representation as possible.  The President should be elected by more people across the spectrum.  The President does not represent only the interests of the Progressives of California.

[RavenHawk]

On 3/4/2019 at 12:21 PM, Princess Bride said:

Yes, but.... lol

Normally I'd agree with you but I  lived in extreme southern Illinois until a year and a half ago. Rural Illinois is so out voted by Chicago that it's isn't even funny. They should consider making Chicago a city state. There used to be the claim that cities sent and spent money on rural services but that just isn't true. Also happens in Minnesota and other states with huge metro areas and the rest of the state extremely backwards and rural. Rural states with huge cities just tend to have this issue. Cities suck all a state's resources.

We have a friend that lives near Melvin.  When we visit and you see the countryside and the people there, it's easy to see how much of a Red State Illinois would be without Chicago.  The Lifestyles are so different between rural and urban in that state.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

well we could improve on it,  we can remove automatic birth citizenship, and make it that at least 1 parent needs to be a citizen for child to be one, it is a fair correction that reflects times. 

Or alternatively say “the child is automatically eligible for American citizenship, but their parents are not, therefore once the child is old enough they can freely enter the United States. Until then, they’re in the care of their parents wherever (is not America) they are”.

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, and then said:

The Starbucks gift card helped!  

I guess Crispy Cream would be pushing it...

[RavenHawk]

4 hours 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.

Of course illegals have rights but walking into this nation uninvited and unwanted is not one of them and as such we have no obligation to observe their rights.  It's just expedient to observe just enough to show them the door.

[+and-then]

25 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I guess Crispy Cream would be pushing it...

Yeah... nobody likes a suck-up  

ETA:  In south Alabama that could even be construed to be a bribe  

Edited March 5, 2019 by and then

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

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.

If you want to make changes then begin by repealing the 16^th and 17^th Amendments.  Both of these were adopted during the Golden Age of Socialism in this country.  Anything that reverses this would be a positive thing.  Given the original concept of the bi-cameral legislature, having the state legislatures elect senators was very logical.  The House represented the people and the Senate represented the states.  So either going back to the state legislatures determining their senators or setting up an Electoral College for senators could be put in place to temper majority vote.

 

Yes, our Constitution was meant to be changed from time to time, but for the purpose that some think it is time for change for change sake is a “Light and Transient Cause”.  If we make changes, it must be done because we fully understand the reasoning behind doing it originally and how that change affects the core beliefs.  For example, the 18^th was a mistake because the people forgot the meaning of the Constitution.  They didn’t understand the Federalist Papers too well and it was repealed by the 21^st.  The 18^th provides a good example that we must be cautious with allowing whims to get the best of us.  It should not be that easy to change.

 

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.

This will never happen.  Conservatives get screwed every time they try to take the higher ground.  There is no compromise with Progressivism.  They just don’t know how to do it.  Their only focus is to grab power.

[Princess Bride]

5 hours ago, and then said:

The Constitution was written with provisions to change it when enough of the people wanted it to change.  I have no problem with that.  The changes being demanded by most Progressives do not envision going that route.  They want a quick, bare consensus and then change it for all the nation.  THAT way lies our destruction.  

 

The Constitution was written by men who faced imprisonment, poverty and death if they failed to win.  Those same men were well read in the literature of the enlightenment and they understood the most important thing about governments and men.  Power corrupts every time and it must be controlled.  That document is the only thing that has secured this nation for 200+ years.  When it becomes unimportant to this nation, this nation will fail and fall.  Good luck with what you have left. 

The average Revolutionary War soldier was a farmer, while the leaders were a bunch of lawyers. The leaders were all liberals and progressives of their day reading cutting edge liberal literature. That's alright, believe your little fairytale. 

[Agent0range]

2 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

The average Revolutionary War soldier was a farmer, while the leaders were a bunch of lawyers. The leaders were all liberals and progressives of their day reading cutting edge liberal literature. That's alright, believe your little fairytale. 

Bahahaha...check his post history.  He's basically the male version of you.  He's actually probably farther right than you are.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Agent0range

[Princess Bride]

Just now, Agent0range said:

Bahahaha...check his post history.  He's basically the male version of you.  He's actually probably farther right than you are.

I think you got a little lost there.

[Agent0range]

Just now, Princess Bride said:

I think you got a little lost there.

It seemed like you tried to paint him as a liberal.  With his little fairytale.

[Princess Bride]

1 minute ago, Agent0range said:

It seemed like you tried to paint him as a liberal.  With his little fairytale.

No, I just suggested his supposed heroes were liberals.

I'm not going to partisan bicker. If you're posting nothing but a bunch of inaccurate jibberish then I won't address your posts but let them stand on their own merit or lack thereof. I'll just note that the Civil War happened and won't be rolled back anytime soon.

[Agent0range]

2 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

No, I just suggested his supposed heroes were liberals.

I'm not going to partisan bicker. If you're posting nothing but a bunch of inaccurate jibberish then I won't address your posts but let them stand on their own merit or lack thereof. I'll just note that the Civil War happened and won't be rolled back anytime soon.

Sooo...you are not a fan of the Founding Fathers?  The creators of the constitution?  They should be heroes to us all.  If that's not what you are saying, can you elaborate a little bit?  Which of his heroes are you talking about?

[F3SS]

She's just saying he's a fool for not liking liberals today because the FF were liberals.

[Agent0range]

1 minute ago, F3SS said:

She's just saying he's a fool for not liking liberals today because the FF were liberals.

Ok, now you really lost me.  Do you not like the founding fathers?  If you do, do you like liberals?  If you like the founding fathers but don't like liberals today, are you a fool?