Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[PoliticalChic]

...When I see drivel like this..

It's only drivel because you disagree with it and because current trends frighten you. Good.

...from the bend-over-and-grab-your-ankles crowd...

Now THAT's honest-to-by-God-Andy-Jackson drivel.

...it brings to mind...

Spare us.

...Grow a pair, and stand up for your rights, the rights under the Constitution.

That is exactly what your Opposition is doing... standing up for their (and their children's) right to life and safety, within a Constitutional framework.

Their right to life and safety trump your right to own and use firearms without proper standards and licensing and registration and transaction-approval and training and storage and reporting requirements - all of which you will be obliged to conform to in the not-too-distant future. It's coming. It's just a matter of when. Which, by the way, is now likely to materialize sooner than you think possible. Watching you wail and moan and gnash your teeth and put on the hair shirt that day will be great fun. Payback's a bitch.

No, you moron.......the most law-abiding Americans are gun owners.

1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.” Few crimes committed by concealed-carry permit holders in Kansas http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)

a. The CDC studied laws throughout the country, and found: “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf

 

[Liquid Reigns]

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

You have not worked in or around immigration law, period. The CFZ has been around since before you were born. All the National ID did was make states DL's hard to counterfeit/forge. Nobody has taken away your 4A rights, that's why you go to court if charged, to show/prove your innocence. Duke took what Cesar Chavez was doing in the late '60's early '70's and made it a racist issue.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

Not my plan, simply an option, that as you say, has been tried before and shown to have worked.

 

[Contumacious]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

Not my plan, simply an option, that as you say, has been tried before and shown to have worked.

STOP STONEWALLING AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

Not my plan, simply an option, that as you say, has been tried before and shown to have worked.

STOP STONEWALLING AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

We don't have a right to Judicial Review, the SCOTUS is granted that power via the USC, ART 3. Now, like I previously stated:
Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

 

[Contumacious]

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

Not my plan, simply an option, that as you say, has been tried before and shown to have worked.

STOP STONEWALLING AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Who the FUCK are you? We don't have a right to Judicial Review, the SCOTUS is granted that power via the USC, ART 3. Now, like I previously stated:
Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

WAKE THE FUCK UP


They were granted the authority but refuse to exercise it ; always siding with the state supremacists, fascists and socialists.

In 1920 , SCOTUS ruled that federal judges were subject to the :income" tax thereby forcing district and appellate judges to be biased


EVANS v. GORE, 40 S. Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245 (U.S. 06/01/1920)


.

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You seem to think that there are no caps on the amount of foreigners allowed in or to do certain types of work. The easy fix would be to limit the number even more or to stop all immigration for some time. To digress, each instance has its ups and downs., including what you are claiming.

"....stop %immigration for some time."

While I am not for halting immigration....just illegal immigration.....your plan has been tried, and was successful:
From 1924 until the Democrats passed their plan to bring the third world here to vote for them, 1965, it was reduced by 98%.

Not my plan, simply an option, that as you say, has been tried before and shown to have worked.

STOP STONEWALLING AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Who the FUCK are you? We don't have a right to Judicial Review, the SCOTUS is granted that power via the USC, ART 3. Now, like I previously stated:
Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

WAKE THE FUCK UP


They were granted the authority but refuse to exercise it ; always siding with the state supremacists, fascists and socialists.

In 1920 , SCOTUS ruled that federal judges were subject to the :income" tax thereby forcing district and appellate judges to be biased


EVANS v. GORE, 40 S. Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245 (U.S. 06/01/1920)


.

What does taxing a judges salary or not have to do with anything? Judges salaries are not taxable. SHRUG

Do you have a point?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

This has been repeatedly shown to you to be incorrect on your part, the $12B is the total of mis-matched SS numbers, which include the employers portion as well, so right away mis-matched numbers are down to $6B. Now deduct the numbers from married women that failed to change their names to match their SS, workers still working after their work authorization expired, etc. At best "illegals" may contribute $3B. Now on top of that, some can get their contributions sent to them via Totalization Agreements, or if they match their legal work authorization to their SS in the US at the age of retirement. These funds are in an ESF account and are not in the actual SS funds.

You keep repeating your same BS even though you have been shown numerous times you are wrong.

The 16th Amendment was never making any headway to be eliminated, everyone of the tax protestors claims have lost in court, you preamble/sovereign citizens are imbeciles.

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

 

[Contumacious]

Yo miserable dingle berry

Do we still have a right to Article III judicial review or have the scumbag "judges" swore to defend and support the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.



.

Do you believe they were covered by our proclamation in the DoI?

Do you know why the US got involved in WWII? It wasn't because of Germany, or what Hitler was doing.

Now where did I ever say or imply Hitler had the authority to gas and/or incinerate them with impunity?

Are you so inept you have to create straw men to knock down to feel as if you are knowledgeable or something?

We are done here

That's right, run away with your tail tucked between your legs. SMFH

 

[Humorme]

For that matter, why am I paying for all the 'aliens' unalienable right to life .....??????

~S~

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

And stop repeating the lie "anti-immigration" when the discussion is about illegal immigration.

If there were a realistic way for people to come here properly, I might agree with you, but the statute says Improper Entry so I will continue to say anti-immigration. You want me to change, then change the laws that force people to become citizens. You pretend that by screaming "illegal" it will change the dynamics. It don't.

 

[Humorme]

Such the mouth. tsk tsk

Do you really think all 9 judges will always agree on everything, all the time? It is their purpose to determine the constitutionality of the laws challenged. So, by all means, if you have a problem with their ruling, figure out a way to gain standing and challenge it, otherwise all your inane words fall flat.

Yo dickhead, do you think it would have been possible for the Jews in nazi Germany to "gain standing" and challenge Hitler's decision to gas/incinerate them?



What a fucking dumbass.

.

The Jews/Nazis have no bearing on this, they weren't covered under our Constitution. SMFH

Maybe the Jews could have formed civilian militias and fought back? IDK SMFH

Natural rights , such as the right to life, are NATURAL RIGHTS , they do not depend on our Constitution for their existence, So German Jews had the right to live.

They also had a right to defend their lives but they trusted he government and allowed the Bismarck administration to disarm them.


.

Yea, so? European Jews were never "armed" to begin with, very few Europeans actually owned firearms, more owned swords or knives. They aren't covered under our Constitution (2A), nor the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

I see , they were not covered by our constitution so Hitler had the authority to gas and incinerate them with impunity ............You are retarded to the max.

We are done here


.

Maybe you don't. I'll bet you wouldn't bitch to find out that aliens without papers are paying $12 BILLION DOLLARS a year into Socialist Security and can never draw a thin dime out in retirement.

The honest answer is, in their zeal to get rid of little brown people from south of the border, the right propped up a plank out of the Communist Manifesto, sabotaging the effort to eliminate the 16th Amendment and rid this country of the IRS - which would have given you a minimum 25 percent wage increase and INSURE that, regardless of your status in this country, you were taxed the same as everyone else. It would have taken that annoying argument off the table.

Perhaps you're right Humorme

'Lil Brown folk are probably a much bigger biz than i had imagined

~S~

As a strict constructionist - and having worked in and around immigration law for six years, I have a unique perspective.

My resume with this issue goes back to the late 1970s. I have been on civilian border patrols. I knew ALL the major players personally between the 1970s and 1990s. I knew everybody all the way up to the current crop of anti-immigrant types that gutted the patriot organizations and civilian militias, recruiting people for this non - win effort.

After those people gutted the efforts to restore the Constitution, they began deflecting and not taking their ownership in the demise of our nation - the so-called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, Constitution Free Zone, evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the end to the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Let's face it. David Duke, the ex-nazi turned KKK leader pioneered this effort. Then, once he abandoned it, Bill Clinton took on the job:



Once Clinton left office and Hitlery went all pro-immigration, the nazis moved back in and reclaimed their territory.


Both the Ds and the Rs are demagoguing this issue in order to take America away from our foundational principles. They are all going down different roads to the same destination. And nobody can reach what was once the civilian militias, conservative groups, etc.

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?

The Ds want the foreigners here for the votes; the Rs want them here for the cheap labor.

Meanwhile the average American... like where I live has guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living at home with mommy. These dirtbags won't work; they're addicted to drugs (many having been fed drugs as a kid for non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD) and a lot of them have made it to middle age with no high school diploma, no job skills, and not even a driver's license.

These sorry asses sit on their computer doing the social media thing and video games all day. A Mexican guy comes through here about twice a week cutting grass because those worthless Americans are that lazy.

The few who do try to do better after years of worthlessness are locked out of the system by a criminal record that shouldn't be available to the general public - except in rare circumstances (like someone who wants to take care of your kids or one who handles large sums of money / automobiles / heavy machinery.

The Rs say they want immigrants - but, only educated ones. Why? Their going to open all those minimum wage jobs up, but it is speculative that the welfare riding, dope sucking, pieces of scatalogical waste will ever take those jobs as is. AND, once the really good jobs are taken over by foreigners who came here "legally" as you like to call it, change the laws and make your points moot, what is your back-up plan?

Seems you weren't prepared to answer the question:

Based on your vaunted 'expertise'.....are the Democrats working tirelessly to entice illegal aliens into the country?



Based on what appears to be dishonesty in your post....I'll ask it another way: Which party handed out applications for food stamps in Mexico to entice illegal aliens??????


"Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico"
Fat And Furious: Obama Pushes Food Stamps In Mexico | Investor's Business Daily


And which party stymied immigration courts to smooth the way for illegal immigrants????

"200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama
....."administratively closed" without action, a move that left tens of thousands of illegal immigrants free to roam America, sometimes indefinitely, according to a new report.

When added to those cases still pending court action, it brings the backlog of cases to about 800,000, far more than previously known.

In his report, he said the exact number isn't known. "I believe that the Obama administration's use of the practice may have ‘cooked the books' as it relates to the true number of cases that are pending adjudication before the immigration courts."

The Trump administration has taken action to reverse the practice of letting authorities close the cases and is working to reschedule them, he added."
200,000 deportation cases quietly 'closed' under Obama





Speak up, you dunce!!!!

Political chic,

The moment someone starts calling me a liar, I don't owe them jackshit except contempt. That's why I almost have to vomit having to associate with people of that ilk in the hopes of saving our unalienable Rights especially those related to the Second Amendment.

If you could open your eyes and learn how to freaking read, I DID answer your question.

Everybody points fingers about which political party did what.

Yeah, the Dems did what Political chic said... Then again, Presidents Bush and Reagan granted "amnesty" to FOUR MILLION undocumented foreigners while Clinton and Obama granted only HALF that amount.

It's a silly ass game whereby both sides try to scapegoat the foreigners while not forcing the Americans who make it possible to have to admit their ownership in the situation.

It's tantamount to blaming flies for shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

.....first.

1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review

....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.


Nay, nay......not so.




2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech





Again???

"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."


Here....Fredo Cuomo:



Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.





For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."

There is only speech.

And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.

Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.

The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.

That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.

We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.

But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.

Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.

Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.

Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.


.

The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.

So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?

~S~

no .. Self DEFENSE is an unalienable human right. Whether it's protecting your business from robbers or looters or your home from vandals and murderers. It was also recognized by our Founders as a legitimate cause to DISSUADE tyrannical govts and govts that dont RESPECT the other rights of their citizenry.