Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gotta love Libs...
They are trying to regulate and control people who already do that themselves.
But it gets a big splash in the media.
The media loves to prop up Obama.
Now everyone in the Democrat party walks away feeling like they fixed this.
Posts like this invite notion that you really don't know what you are talking about..
The OP is describing a "fallacy" of Constitutional Doctrine.
Except..he was shown to be wrong.
So he fell back to another fallacy and again shown to be wrong.
They he fell back to a "private" oath.
Government "regulates" interaction between people.
Left to their own devices, people would murder each other (and often do even with regulation) for extremely silly reasons. Like personal insults.
We can go back a forth I proved you wrong no I proved you wrong no when you said I was wrong you were wrong.
But I will say you are dead wrong.
Posts like this invite notion that you really don't know what you are talking about..
The OP is describing a "fallacy" of Constitutional Doctrine.
Except..he was shown to be wrong.
So he fell back to another fallacy and again shown to be wrong.
They he fell back to a "private" oath.
Government "regulates" interaction between people.
Left to their own devices, people would murder each other (and often do even with regulation) for extremely silly reasons. Like personal insults.
We can go back a forth I proved you wrong no I proved you wrong no when you said I was wrong you were wrong.
But I will say you are dead wrong.
You are espousing points that are patently wrong and not supported constitutionally. Heck, one of them that you posted in this thread isn't even supported by case law.
And you should know that, being you were a law enforcement officer.
We can go back a forth I proved you wrong no I proved you wrong no when you said I was wrong you were wrong.
But I will say you are dead wrong.
You are espousing points that are patently wrong and not supported constitutionally. Heck, one of them that you posted in this thread isn't even supported by case law.
And you should know that, being you were a law enforcement officer.
Dude this may come as a shock to you, but the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government, Therefore you argument is a BIG FAIL.
This is how the Marxist Obama thinks.She's right.
In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.
"The Constitution doesn't say what the Gov't can do to you, and we need to address that".
Obama isn't marxist.
Link your quote, by the way.
This is how the Marxist Obama thinks.
"The Constitution doesn't say what the Gov't can do to you, and we need to address that".
Obama isn't marxist.
Link your quote, by the way.
Didn't Marx say that socialism leads to communism?
And once againYou are espousing points that are patently wrong and not supported constitutionally. Heck, one of them that you posted in this thread isn't even supported by case law.
And you should know that, being you were a law enforcement officer.
Dude this may come as a shock to you, but the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government, Therefore you argument is a BIG FAIL.
Once again.
The government provides NO amendment, clause, word or letter that supports armed rebellion.
It does provide checks and balances along with the peaceful transfer of power via elections.
Anything else is Unconstitutional.
Period.
And once againDude this may come as a shock to you, but the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government, Therefore you argument is a BIG FAIL.
Once again.
The government provides NO amendment, clause, word or letter that supports armed rebellion.
It does provide checks and balances along with the peaceful transfer of power via elections.
Anything else is Unconstitutional.
Period.
"the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government"
However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.
No it's not.
In fact quite the opposite.
There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.
There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.
Your interpretation of the Constitution is only valid in Loonyleftyland.
Article I, sec. 8, clause 14, 15 and 16 are worth reading and discussing when Second Amendment issues arise.
Article I, sec. 8, clause 14, 15 and 16 are worth reading and discussing when Second Amendment issues arise.
The government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution why do some people just ignore this?
And once againOnce again.
The government provides NO amendment, clause, word or letter that supports armed rebellion.
It does provide checks and balances along with the peaceful transfer of power via elections.
Anything else is Unconstitutional.
Period.
"the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government"
Now you are engaging in logical fallacies.
Article I, sec. 8, clause 14, 15 and 16 are worth reading and discussing when Second Amendment issues arise.
The government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution why do some people just ignore this?
Because, in that extreme case, the Constitution no longer applies.
And once again
"the government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution. There is no oath to protect the government"
Now you are engaging in logical fallacies.
Would a government that allows assassination of it citizens be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
Would a government that allows indefinite detention of it's citizens be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
Would a government that allows it citizens to be disarmed be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
The government can be a domestic enemy to the Constitution why do some people just ignore this?
Because, in that extreme case, the Constitution no longer applies.
But first they would be a domestic enemy to the CONSTITUTION.
Now you are engaging in logical fallacies.
Would a government that allows assassination of it citizens be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
Would a government that allows indefinite detention of it's citizens be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
Would a government that allows it citizens to be disarmed be pro constitution or a domestic enemy to the Constitution?
Engaging in Hyperbole doesn't make your case.
And..there are legal remedies in our justice system to all the examples you've posted.
Because, in that extreme case, the Constitution no longer applies.
But first they would be a domestic enemy to the CONSTITUTION.
Basically..there are several ideas going on here.
What's Constitutional..and what isn't.
The Constitution makes no provision to take up arms against the government..none.
So once you start down the road of armed rebellion..you are breaking with the Constitution.
That's a pretty basic and fundamental point.
But first they would be a domestic enemy to the CONSTITUTION.
Basically..there are several ideas going on here.
What's Constitutional..and what isn't.
The Constitution makes no provision to take up arms against the government..none.
So once you start down the road of armed rebellion..you are breaking with the Constitution.
That's a pretty basic and fundamental point.
You cannot infringe on the basic God given rights of a citizen, no matter how many laws are wrote saying otherwise.
You cannot take away the right of defend your life in the manner you so choose.
