Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, a new amendment can repeal the Second. That is not illegal in any way. Stupid, but not illegal.

No. The 18th Amendment did not say "no law will be passed allowing the purchase and sail of alcohol" therefore the law did not prohibit it's own repeal. The 2nd amendment is specific to "the people to keep and bare arms" and specifically prohibits laws restricting such. you cannot argue that it is legal to pass a law that a previous law states specifically you cannot pass. and since the 2nd amendment states that, specifically, and only deals with this aspect then any law specifically repealing it is illegal only a general law repealing the entire Bill-of-Rights (and therefore not specifically targeted at gun ownership) can be legally passed.

Can congress by itself amend the Constitution? No, it cannot. So the clause, Congress shall make no law, means just that the laws Congress can make. That clause does not stipulate any actions taken by the sovereign citizens of this country. It does in no way restrict the citizens from changing the Constitution itself. If you believe it does, then review the 10th.

While the 2A does restrict any laws congress can make by itself, the 2A cannot restrict the sovereign citizen from amending the Constitution as allowed by the Constitution itself. This document is meant to define how sovereignty is kept in the hands of the citizenry after all.

Yet another NAZI diversion, not sure how it is relevant to this discussion, but I'll add to it.
During the NAZIs rise the German police and military did nothing to stop it, and they shouldn't have. The NAZIs did it by the book, and had the support of the majority of the population. They were evil sh*ts, but legal at that stage.
That is what worries the rest of the world about both Trump and the rise of the ultra right (Tea Party or whatever it is called) in the US. If the US people allow such people to gain power by legitimate means, without using legitimate means to block it, they and us may be in for a world of hurt.

My sister's husband's sister and her family (US born) are currently moving from the US to Australia because they fear the swing to the right is making their lives less secure.

Lol Daryl. They picked a great time since it's looking like the far right nutters are going to retain power here.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

As opposed to progressive nutters? The nutters that wish to prohibit certain people they find hateful from speaking?

Annachie wrote:Lol Daryl. They picked a great time since it's looking like the far right nutters are going to retain power here.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:As opposed to progressive nutters? The nutters that wish to prohibit certain people they find hateful from speaking?

Annachie wrote:Lol Daryl. They picked a great time since it's looking like the far right nutters are going to retain power here.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

And people are being prevented from speaking where and how exactly?

Please say you're referring to something more substantial than some college students protesting someone they don't like being invited to address their campus or something.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:As opposed to progressive nutters? The nutters that wish to prohibit certain people they find hateful from speaking?

And people are being prevented from speaking where and how exactly?

Please say you're referring to something more substantial than some college students protesting someone they don't like being invited to address their campus or something.

http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-demonstrates-contempt-for-free-speech/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/idaho-rape-obama-prosecutor-silencing-americans-with-threats-of-arrest/#!

It is now appropriate to prevent others from freely expressing their political views? Or is our government now able to silence some people and allow others to speak freely?

When the Nation of Islam calls for white police officers to be killed, they can speak. When local citizens are angry about 2 juvenile rapists attacking a special needs 5 year old child, they have to shut up.

Why do those BLM nutters believe it is ok to silence political opposition? Because our government silences those that disagree with them.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
And people are being prevented from speaking where and how exactly?

Please say you're referring to something more substantial than some college students protesting someone they don't like being invited to address their campus or something.

http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-demonstrates-contempt-for-free-speech/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/idaho-rape-obama-prosecutor-silencing-americans-with-threats-of-arrest/#!

Seriously? That's the best you could do? A couple people getting in an argument at a protest and one of them ripping up the other one's sign... and a US attorney "threatening" to enforce federal law? (It IS actually illegal to make deliberately false statements about issues under federal jurisdiction such as a federal criminal case you know... and it has been for a *long* time. That is not a "progressive" thing. That article is unhinged, calling law enforcement an act of terrorism (or at least "terror threats").

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001#

When the Nation of Islam calls for white police officers to be killed, they can speak. When local citizens are angry about 2 juvenile rapists attacking a special needs 5 year old child, they have to shut up.

No, they do not have to shut up. They just aren't allowed to deliberately lie about it.

That's not what BLM was doing. They attempted to interrupt a display by a political opponent. Those opponents have as much right to speak there peace, but BLM doesn't let them. So, yes, these nutters are attempting to restrict who speaks and expresses themselves and who cannot.

That law stipulates those that fall under the executive, legislative or judicial jurisdiction with the exception of the defendant and his/her counsel. It does not apply to citizens at large. Yet, the citizenry at large is exactly who the DA threatened.

So, yes, progressive nutters are trying to limit the exercise of our First Amendment rights. They are getting a poor example from the Administration.

PeterZ wrote:That's not what BLM was doing. They attempted to interrupt a display by a political opponent.

Yes. By my count two whole people did that.

That law stipulates those that fall under the executive, legislative or judicial jurisdiction with the exception of the defendant and his/her counsel. It does not apply to citizens at large. Yet, the citizenry at large is exactly who the DA threatened.

You are misreading the law. It does not say anyone within the jurisdiction. It says whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction...

Once they start making false claims about a federal criminal case they have involved themselves in such a matter, and they can be prosecuted if they push their luck on it.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:That's not what BLM was doing. They attempted to interrupt a display by a political opponent.

Yes. By my count two whole people did that.

That law stipulates those that fall under the executive, legislative or judicial jurisdiction with the exception of the defendant and his/her counsel. It does not apply to citizens at large. Yet, the citizenry at large is exactly who the DA threatened.

You are misreading the law. It does not say anyone within the jurisdiction. It says whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction...

Once they start making false claims about a federal criminal case they have involved themselves in such a matter, and they can be prosecuted if they push their luck on it.

I stand corrected.
Knowingly and deliberately making false claims. Not sure that applies here, but of course they can bring charges. Just as the IRS was sicked on political opponents, the DoJ is used to silence opposition.

The degree that opposition believes the current administration is fairly applying the law is quite low. Hence, the belief that BLM and other nutters attempt to silence opposition prevails.