So progressives want “sanctuary cities”, uh?

[Auld Phart]

the draft?

Which only takes males between the ages of 18-26?

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

think they are going to pick males that aren't able bodied?
Females?
anyone over a certain age? 40 maybe?
under a certain age?

so damn easy to pick apart your weak arguments

our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception. the right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

women had the right to vote?

Blacks had the right to vote?

you keep throwing shit against the wall, and I:

being illegal to our own laws, doesn't imply we should be hypocrites, to less fortunate illegals.

Citizen or not, if they break the law, bust them

 

[danielpalos]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing; the People are the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception. the right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

women had the right to vote?

Blacks had the right to vote?

you keep throwing shit against the wall, and I:

being illegal to our own laws, doesn't imply we should be hypocrites, to less fortunate illegals.

off topic

Sanctuary requires morals?

what are you talking about?

The discussion is about militias.

you're way off topic.

(tho, considering how much you DON'T know about militias, I can see why you're trying to derail the thread)

the right wing refuses to muster simply to show off their alleged work ethic from the Age of Iron.

moral coincidence or moral conspiracy.

 

[Auld Phart]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing; the People are the militia.

Obviously, you're a slow learner

only SOME of the people comprise the militia

 

[Auld Phart]

women had the right to vote?

Blacks had the right to vote?

you keep throwing shit against the wall, and I:

being illegal to our own laws, doesn't imply we should be hypocrites, to less fortunate illegals.

off topic

Sanctuary requires morals?

what are you talking about?

The discussion is about militias.

you're way off topic.

(tho, considering how much you DON'T know about militias, I can see why you're trying to derail the thread)

the right wing refuses to muster simply to show off their alleged work ethic from the Age of Iron.

moral coincidence or moral conspiracy.

still not making sense.

 

[P@triot]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing

The law means “nothing”? Typical progressive...

 

[P@triot]

still not making sense.

He never does. He’s a Paid Russian Troll. He thinks if he throws out various American terms he can “trick” people into believing he’s “smart”.

 

[busybee01]

However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Dumb ass...if you are “regulating guns” then you are running “afoul of the 2nd Amendment”.

.....shall not be infringed

Thanks for showing you are the DUMB ASS. States and the federal government can set reasonable age limits on who can own a gun. they can also ban any device that makes a semi-automatic rifle act like a automatic weapon.

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

Here is the problem. The Constitution does not require state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. Those officials can be charged by the state and removed.

There is no language in the constitution that allows guns to be regulated. looks you may be another one who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed means".

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

you really are a far right looney tune. No court believes that.

 

[koshergrl]

Dumb ass...if you are “regulating guns” then you are running “afoul of the 2nd Amendment”.

.....shall not be infringed

Thanks for showing you are the DUMB ASS. States and the federal government can set reasonable age limits on who can own a gun. they can also ban any device that makes a semi-automatic rifle act like a automatic weapon.

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

There is no language in the constitution that allows guns to be regulated. looks you may be another one who doesn't know what "shall not be infringed means".

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

you really are a far right looney tune. No court believes that.

Wrong you are.

And psst..the court has no authority to impose, or enforce, unconstitutional laws.

 

[busybee01]

Thanks for showing you are the DUMB ASS. States and the federal government can set reasonable age limits on who can own a gun. they can also ban any device that makes a semi-automatic rifle act like a automatic weapon.

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

you are so ignorant. States are allowed to regulate guns. The courts have upheld certain restrictions on guns imposed by states.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

you really are a far right looney tune. No court believes that.

Wrong you are.

And psst..the court has no authority to impose, or enforce, unconstitutional laws.

You are aware of the fact that the legal age for buying a handgun is 21. that has never been overturned.

 

[miketx]

"Congress shall make no law" is the same as "shall not be infringed". These are sacrosanct, and short of an amendment are the law of the United States.

States have their own constitutions, which must abide by the US Constitution. States may INCREASE the protections granted, but not DIMINISH them.

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

Unconstitutional acts, all.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

you really are a far right looney tune. No court believes that.

Wrong you are.

And psst..the court has no authority to impose, or enforce, unconstitutional laws.

You are aware of the fact that the legal age for buying a handgun is 21. that has never been overturned.

What does that have to with courts violating the constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing; the People are the militia.

Obviously, you're a slow learner

only SOME of the people comprise the militia

Means nothing; Congress can choose from the whole People.

And, the People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

 

[danielpalos]

being illegal to our own laws, doesn't imply we should be hypocrites, to less fortunate illegals.

off topic

Sanctuary requires morals?

what are you talking about?

The discussion is about militias.

you're way off topic.

(tho, considering how much you DON'T know about militias, I can see why you're trying to derail the thread)

the right wing refuses to muster simply to show off their alleged work ethic from the Age of Iron.

moral coincidence or moral conspiracy.

still not making sense.

no morals, either?

 

[danielpalos]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing

The law means “nothing”? Typical progressive...

appeals to ignorance of the law, mean nothing. only the story telling right wing, never gets it.

 

[miketx]

Congress can change the law and pick any of the People, they choose.

But they haven’t, snowflake.

Means nothing

The law means “nothing”? Typical progressive...

appeals to ignorance of the law, mean nothing. only the story telling right wing, never gets it.

We get it, you're lying, again.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Good example .

The cons would have ya deport Carlos . Leaving Mom and the kids hear with no breadwinner . Meaning everyone is on welfare and now you have a broken family (I thought cons hated that) further decreasing the kids chance

Haha...”breadwinner”...that’s funny shit.
You and I both know that $500 in cash is spent on pit bulls, weed, Modello, Tapatio and that beat to shit 1986 Toyota pickup.
Guadalupe makes it here without Carlos...thanks to REAL American taxpayers.
To be honest, a good “Con” says fuck the whole cockroach family...DEPORT THEM ALL!

raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour; and simply charge a fine or a fee, and identify all foreign nationals in the US to the federal government.

raising the min wage doesn't help.
charge a fee? for breaking the law and fucking over people who apply the right way?
wow, what a horrible idea. no kick them out and make them go through the same process as everyone else.

that doesn't work. and, simply "creating illegals", is no form of right wing solution.

creating illegals..what does that mean???
and it does work, we have millions that enter the country correctly.....I work with tons of them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

No loon. It means local law enforcement don’t work for the feds.

You don’t even know what sanctuary city means, whiny little silly boy

hey sealy.....another great post by jillian...does she ever offer any documentation or any logical thought process....another 2 line post full of insults....it's all she has

 

[buckeye45_73]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

mustering the militia, is not, violating the Constitution. the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

it says PEOPLE have the right dipshit, it talks about militia as to why its needed, they are the same.

not all of the People are well regulated.

you posted this:

However states are allowed to regulate guns as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Dumb ass...if you are “regulating guns” then you are running “afoul of the 2nd Amendment”.

.....shall not be infringed

it is why, our Second Amendment, specifically declares, which Persons of the People are Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

you do know what a milita was?

yes, i do. i am into history, as well.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

you quoted it, not me........I agree with Mr Mason a great founding father.

notice the exception was for public officials (ie the govt)

thank your for making my point....

 

[P@triot]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

No loon. It means local law enforcement don’t work for the feds.

You don’t even know what sanctuary city means, whiny little silly boy

hey sealy.....another great post by jillian...does she ever offer any documentation or any logical thought process....another 2 line post full of insults....it's all she has

The poor thing is very bitter. She's a lot like Hitlery Clinton - just an emotional train wreck who can't figure out which way is up due to her raging estrogen.

She's Jewish, but sides with the group of people who hate Jews to their bitter core (figure that one out). President Trump has given her more money, more liberty, and more security, but she's losing her shit that he's President of the United States.

I think, ultimately, it boils down to control. Like all Dumbocrats, she wants complete and total control over the masses and she knows she'll never get that with conservatives in charge.

 

[busybee01]

States can regulate firearms as long as they do not run afoul of the Second Amendment. The gist of the new regulations in Florida will be upheld by the courts. The only question is whether the law pertaining to the taking of guns contains sufficient protections to ensure this is not done in a arbitrary manner.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
So any *gun law* is by definition a violation of the 2A.

You are going to get a education courtesy of Florida.

Every law that restricts our right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Every. Single. One.

you really are a far right looney tune. No court believes that.

Wrong you are.

And psst..the court has no authority to impose, or enforce, unconstitutional laws.

You are aware of the fact that the legal age for buying a handgun is 21. that has never been overturned.

What does that have to with courts violating the constitution?

According to people like you, governments cannot set a minimum age. That is regulation and it is considered by the courts to not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.