Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:I got that far. Long and the short of it is that the goals of that organization ARE political.

No, they're policy related. Which is different. Tax exempt 501(c)s can lobby for policy, they may not get involved in politics.



For example: Taking out an ad saying "Please support Goal X" : ok. (As long as "Goal X" isn't "elect more Democrats" or something...)

Taking out an ad saying "Please support Candidate Y (or Party Z) because they will support Goal X" : Not ok.

Similar goal statements but describing conservative policy initiatives were rejected disproportionately by the IRS.

Which rejections are you referring to?

I recall that back in 2013 when people were still freaking about about this exactly one group had had it's application actually denied, and that was a progressive one. "Emerge America". It was training women to run for office on a Democratic ticket, a no no for a 501c. So they got turned down.

Everyone else had either already had their application granted, had withdrawn the application, or it was still in review.

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

We had the religious right complaining about the anti-hate speach laws down here.
Seems they want them romoved so they could talk about gay marriage.

Unfortunately the haters, generally right wing ultra nationals and christian fundies, have ruined our casual racism culture in Australia.

Much to our detriment.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Fully agree Annachie.
Australia had a great mocking (take the mickey) attitude, and because of a few idiots we have gone poo faced.
The best aboriginal jokes I have ever heard were at an outback conference where I was the only white person there.
Acropolis Now was a TV show by Greek migrants that laughed at their own culture, Steady Eddie was a cerebral palsy comedian who told disabled jokes.
Our casual racism was actually a hamfisted but good natured and well intentioned approach to get everyone assimilated.
The President of our Sporting Wheelies (wheelchair athletes) asked me "What's black and sits at the top of the stairs?", answer was "A quadriplegic after a house fire".
Can't say that now, opps I just did.

gcomeau wrote:No law can prohibit it's own repeal.

Where do you get that idea, yes it can , and does.

PeterZ wrote: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.

Do you even know how laws are made? You seem to think that "the citizens" make up some "law" and poof there it is. Amendments are made by ... uhmm ... who ??? that would be Congress. THEY make up a "Bill", then THEY pass it and THEN it gets ratified by the states and becomes an Amendment. "the citizens" have nothing to do with it. And the act of Congress passing a bill for the purpose of repealing the 2nd Amendment would in itself be an act of Congress passing a LAW for the purpose of INFRINGING ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS, whether you want it to be or not.

where are you getting this non-sense?

Daryl wrote:...The NAZIs did it by the book...

No, Hitler was appointed, then he exceeded his authority to illegally force others in power out and changed the rules as he went along.

Daryl wrote:...and had the support of the majority of the population...

They did not have the support of the majority, they had the support of a very vocal and violent minority, who bullied the majority into inaction.

Daryl wrote:...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...

this is just complete and utter lying socialist crap. I don't know where you heard it from but they lied to you. 1at it isn't the US right who are trying to take over, they are the ones trying to keep the power in the hands of the people. It's the ultra Hillary leftist socialist pinkos that are trying to take away the peoples rights and establish a socialist dictatorship. And the biggest proof of they leftist lies is that the Tea Party is NOT right wing at all. That was always leftist propaganda lies from the beginning. The whole point of the Tea Party is that is dead center, ULTRA MODERATE it is neither left nor right. there are members who are both slightly right AND slightly left, in it and anyone who tells you different, you tell them, they are a liar! plain and simple.

gcomeau wrote:The tax exemption of those organizations is DEPENDENT on them not overly involving themselves in political campaigning or organizing.

What you just said can be reworded as "there is evidence the IRS acted to enforce tax law". Political groups are NOT SUPPOSED to be raising funds using tax exempt organizations!

you mean "enforcing tax ales" that aren't enforced on other organizations, such as ACORN or the (so-called) ACLU? hmmm why weren't they effected? maybe because they are ultra left wing socialists?

PeterZ wrote:The FBI and DOJ looked into it and found no wrong doing.

oh, yea, that's right, they did ... hmmm 2 organizations headed by people appointed by the same liberal Dictato...I mean leader, who appointed the head of the other one? hmm ... nothing funny there, I'm sure.

Annachie wrote:Unfortunately the haters, generally right wing ultra nationals and [Christian] fundies...

As opposed to those who hate Christians and Christian values and demand their own right to fee speech so they can say they hate them, but hate letting the Christians have free speech?

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:No law can prohibit it's own repeal.

Where do you get that idea, yes it can , and does.

Only if that is explicitly stated. The second amendment prohibits congress from making more restrictive laws, but a repealment of the 2nd Amendment is not a restriction prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. If you want to know what a proper "eternity clause" in constitutional law looks like, I would point you towards Article 79, clause 3 of the German Grundgesetz. It states:

(3) Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.

Article 1 isn't very interesting in this context (its purpose is to make the safeguarding and preservation of human dignity the supreme goal of the state), but Article 20 certainly is:

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

You see? That's how you do a proper eternity clause. It's clearly spelled out and comprehensible. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the Grundgesetz in its entirety. Your assertion that the second amendment is similarly "eternal" does not hold water, because of the general assumption that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the US citizenry. A repealment of the second amendment, therefore, is completely legal in and of itself, as this would not grant new powers to the federal government.

MAD-4A wrote:No, Hitler was appointed, then he exceeded his authority to illegally force others in power out and changed the rules as he went along.

He did no such thing. Every action he took was completely legal within the terms of the Weimar constitution, which is why the Grundgesetz adopted after the end of WW2 specifically included an eternity clause that prohibits similar changes.

Again, MAD-4A, get your head out of whatever gun-nut propaganda you're apparently reading and do some actual research.

MAD-4A wrote:They did not have the support of the majority, they had the support of a very vocal and violent minority, who bullied the majority into inaction.

Again, wrong. Contemporary sources show massive public support for the NSDAP, and let's not forget how completely the Nazis managed to steamroll the public with their well-orchestrated political campaigns. Was there bullying? Sure. The SA were no choir boys. But most of that was directed at what the public believed to be acceptable targets, such as socialists and communists.

this is just complete and utter lying socialist crap. I don't know where you heard it from but they lied to you. 1at it isn't the US right who are trying to take over, they are the ones trying to keep the power in the hands of the people.

... By putting it in the small-fingered hands of an insecure liar and hypocrite who has already said that he would be willing to violate not only the Geneva Convention on warfare, but also weaken the protections of the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people who call him out on his bullshit?

Please tell me there's some element to this idiocy I'm missing here.

It's the ultra Hillary leftist socialist pinkos that are trying to take away the peoples rights and establish a socialist dictatorship. And the biggest proof of they leftist lies is that the Tea Party is NOT right wing at all. That was always leftist propaganda lies from the beginning. The whole point of the Tea Party is that is dead center, ULTRA MODERATE it is neither left nor right. there are members who are both slightly right AND slightly left, in it and anyone who tells you different, you tell them, they are a liar! plain and simple.

There sure are a lot of Democrats on this list.