-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Gun Control Florida Shooting
- Thread starter Waynzee
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
yobuck
Well-Known Member
Whats next shouldn't be hard to figure out.
If the Liberals can't take the semi-auto firearms from you, they will strangle the supply of components like after Sandy Hook. Admittedly hoarding didn't help and primer and powder hasn't recovered completely to full availability since. This forum needs to be proactive in protecting the issues that affect it's purpose. There is a lot at stake this November, every choice made may have grave consequences for the future.
Engineering101
Well-Known Member
With minorities (who tend to lean way left) an ever increasing part of the electorate (more than 25% to date) I have predicted that the Republicans will never win the white house again. 25% is too much to give up and think you are going to win a general election. So Trump has no shot. But don't get your panties in a knot. The President doesn't make law and can do crap to restrict our 2nd amendment rights. Congress on the other had can. That is where you have to be careful.
Waynzee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
- Messages
- 732
This is what I have heard recently, see if it makes sense to ya'll. If Hillerlay is elected she will elect Supreme Court Justice that are liberal and do with the 2nd amendment what Oblamer did with healthcare. That is why you're not hearing anything more about putting a new Justice in there right now.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
Don't think that's true if our future is liberal, between the love of executive order and stacking the supreme court this next president will decide the direction of the nation for many years to come!
It's sad watching it evolve the way it is. teach your kids, vote republican, support the nra and stick together.
Theoretically (and constitutionally), neither the exec or the legislature can do anything about the 2nd Amendment. It's in the Bill of Rights and can only be interpreted by the Supreme Court, so long as when it's violated somebody sues and the SCOTUS agrees to hear.
There's a powerful propaganda campaign in progress. So long as it convinces a voting majority to disarm the public, then the next step is a constitutional convention OR the SCOTUS ruling from the bench (ha ha, never happens eh?).
I've always been perplexed as to why somebody can name a supreme court justice as being conservative or liberal. That, to me, is inane. Their entire job is interpreting the Constitution. If there's a "liberal" or "conservative" justice on the bench, then they never had any place there from the start. In reality, of course that's not realistic, but you'd think they would at least try to give the impression of "interpreting" the Constitution. Heck, our last savior (rest in peace), in his discussions of the Heller case said that 2A was not absolute and could be restricted in the number and type of arms that citizens could keep. That, to me, is a blatant violation of 2A if there ever was one. And he was the "conservative", and now he's dead.
There's a powerful propaganda campaign in progress. So long as it convinces a voting majority to disarm the public, then the next step is a constitutional convention OR the SCOTUS ruling from the bench (ha ha, never happens eh?).
I've always been perplexed as to why somebody can name a supreme court justice as being conservative or liberal. That, to me, is inane. Their entire job is interpreting the Constitution. If there's a "liberal" or "conservative" justice on the bench, then they never had any place there from the start. In reality, of course that's not realistic, but you'd think they would at least try to give the impression of "interpreting" the Constitution. Heck, our last savior (rest in peace), in his discussions of the Heller case said that 2A was not absolute and could be restricted in the number and type of arms that citizens could keep. That, to me, is a blatant violation of 2A if there ever was one. And he was the "conservative", and now he's dead.
Wild Bill G
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 304
I really feel for you guys right now and know that whatever happens on your side of the border will effect us too. I believe those polls are rigged and only the right people get questioned. On another forum I am on even the non gun owners don't want gun control. They understand what it means to your freedoms and rights Every gun owner and Republican had better vote in November too often we lose because we don't vote. A prime example is England right now all the stays are crying the blues. They had a chance to vote but chose not too. Don't let this happen to you drag the slackers in if they are'nt going to vote.
I could not agree with you more. If most of the 100 million or so gun owners get to the polls (to vote R) then we stand a good chance of halting their agenda for at least a few more years. I emphasize voting republican for the simple reason that the democrats have made gun control/confiscation a part of their party platform. And I say this knowing that their are a small few democrats out their that are pro second, but, do you trust them enough to take a stand and deviate from their parties stated line?
Wild Bill G
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 304
It is sad that we do have the gun owners that believe AR looking rifles need not be in our hands. They don't get that 1 type of fire arm will mean all. Trump from what I have heard up here does appear to be pro gun.
RoadKill
Active Member
No way did I author this being not nearly so well learned nor much the communicator outside my element. Thanks belong to an AZ rancher, CGDustDevil, for posting this over on another forum …
"Scalia did a very subtle but clever thing in Heller, and for his brilliant effort, we should erect a monument in his honor! What Scalia did was to separate the individual right to keep and bear arms FROM the 2nd Amendment. Instead he focused his opinion on the fact that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not a "Constitutional Right". And he's not making anything up... This is truly the original intent of the Founders! Citizens and gun groups have mistakenly and dangerously drawn the connection between the 2nd and the individual right to keep and bear arms. Historical evidence is plentiful that should convince us to believe that the 2nd Amendment restricts governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as a function of promoting parity in arms and supplies between the 'militia of the several states' and the central government. The individual right to keep & bear comes from the Declaration and the Judeo-Christian concepts of our God given (aka 'natural) right to life, liberty and property. And since the militia is made up of 'the people' (excluding federal participation by design), there are no Constitutionally legal ways to enable disarmament of the people either with or without a proper and Constitutional 'militia of the several states'.
We MUST agree that The Creator (Be it Almighty God or simply the natural right of humans as the dominant species) is the source of our rights, or a future Unconstitutional kangaroo court will take out the 2nd Amendment with the expectation that they can then disarm us. Politicians can throw the 2nd Amendment away (which they've pretty much done anyway) but they simply cannot take our right to keep and bear arms as a component of the 2nd Amendment. THEY must understand that they do not have that authority within or without the 2nd Amendment."
CGDustDevil
&& And more …
p s wrote:
The scary part is the 4/4 split, 4 justices gave BHO the green light to write law.
TX wrote:
The SC has become so corrupt, they can't even vote against blatant executive overreach without doing so on purely political lines. This is further proof that the left has no intention of following LAW, when they can make up law. It will only get worse from here.
CGDustDevil wrote:
Trouble is they do not see themselves as corrupt, nor does Congress (for obvious reasons) and most importantly, nor do the bulk of our citizens! They (and the majority of the citizenry) see the institution and justices as enlightened and omnipotent. The justices themselves do not even understand anymore (even Scalia!) that their role was NEVER intended to make or strike down laws. I'm sure that Scalia KNEW the difference, but he sure wasn't gonna be the only one standing around with a Constitution in his hands trying to fight 'city hall'! He well may have had plans to try to wrestle things back in a more Constitutional direction as Heller suggests. But he too was the product of the 'legal system' that lives and dies on 'legal precedent'. (Another totally cockeyed concept that our Founders would have raised hell about!!)
The bottom line is that at conception, their (SCOTUS) job was to offer opinions on special cases that may come up between states, or where the United States was a party. It was NEVER intended to 'make law', or there would be no need for the Executive Branch!
The Federalist papers make it perfectly clear what the remedies are for a runaway court & Congress. Impeachment, dethroning, elections. When so-called 'laws' slipped through the cracks and did not pass Constitutional muster, we (the citizenry) were to simply nullify them. Once nullified by the peoples' collective inattention to the statute, we were to throw the bums out and get new bums who'd pay attention to their oaths and the Constitution!
The Legislative branch makes the law... The Judicial branch High Court evaluates the laws when necessary and offers their opinion. If The People decided that the law was wrong or Unconstitutional, we were to nullify via jury nullification if anyone fell victim to the Unconstitutional laws. Our long term remedy was to get rid of the offending representative(s) who sponsored the illegitimate law.
But... The court veered off their intended path in the early 1800s when they for the 1st time exceeded their authority and reversed a state law, Unconstitutionally. (Fletcher v. Peck, 1810) This case originated when Georgia passed a law which reversed land deals in which members of Congress were involved and suspected of being involved with bribery. The Georgia law would reverse the deal if the offending Congressman/men were implicated. It's not hard to figure out why the SCOTUS came down the way they did when you understand where the court physically sat in relation to our elected officials! Yeah, they used to sit in the Capital after the government moved to the District of Columbia in 1800. No chance of any mischief there, eh?
Anyway - SCOTUS (under John Marshall) reversed the Georgia state law quite Unconstitutionally, which essentially prohibited the state from interfering with the business of Congressional bribery! Incredible as it seems, that's where the court crossed the Constitutional line between "Opinion" and "Law". And it should be no surprise to find out that land capers STILL disgrace our Congress. (Ask Harry Reid why Cliven Bundy is the ONLY rancher left in the Southern Nevada area...)
Once the SCOTUS went off on their little Unconstitutional tear in 1810, we've been in trouble to one degree or another ever since.
It got really screwy in 1907 when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes admitted in a speech: "...we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...". But 1907 was just when the speech took place. The actual legal debauchery most certainly was well underway by that time. Still, the court held to some guidelines as to the types of cases it would hear. That practice and a whole lot more went completely and utterly to hell in the 1930s under Roosevelt.
Ever since then, Congress has used the court to legislate what they cannot pass legislatively. There's a understanding of detente with reference to the court now for that reason. And in fact, the party system has gotten SO good at playing the American public, they can pit one side against the other at will. This means of course that they can support privately ANYTHING because they know the court will 'save the act' in most cases. Yet they still have the appearance of 'taking sides' which promotes excitement for 'their side'.
In fact, 'their side' is BOTH sides anymore. They could pass a mandatory dog-turd-for-dinner bill that NOBODY wants, and if the SCOTUS happens to think the people should have dog turds for dinner periodically, they'll make law out of it. All Congress has to do is pass it and get a few legal challenges. SCOTUS will do the rest.
This is why they accepted Obamacare... Both sides wanted it, but one side had to oppose it and one side had to promote it in order to generate excitement and votes at election time. Republicans of course have cashed that check 3 times now without having to drop their trousers even once. Now they're rolling out their 'alternative' to Obamacare JUST in time for the 2016 election.
It's all political theater. Congress, court, all of it. Which is why I'm no longer particularly interested in which side 'wins', because it no longer matters. The two parties are a facade, and the court makes the law for the highest bidder.
"Scalia did a very subtle but clever thing in Heller, and for his brilliant effort, we should erect a monument in his honor! What Scalia did was to separate the individual right to keep and bear arms FROM the 2nd Amendment. Instead he focused his opinion on the fact that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, not a "Constitutional Right". And he's not making anything up... This is truly the original intent of the Founders! Citizens and gun groups have mistakenly and dangerously drawn the connection between the 2nd and the individual right to keep and bear arms. Historical evidence is plentiful that should convince us to believe that the 2nd Amendment restricts governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as a function of promoting parity in arms and supplies between the 'militia of the several states' and the central government. The individual right to keep & bear comes from the Declaration and the Judeo-Christian concepts of our God given (aka 'natural) right to life, liberty and property. And since the militia is made up of 'the people' (excluding federal participation by design), there are no Constitutionally legal ways to enable disarmament of the people either with or without a proper and Constitutional 'militia of the several states'.
We MUST agree that The Creator (Be it Almighty God or simply the natural right of humans as the dominant species) is the source of our rights, or a future Unconstitutional kangaroo court will take out the 2nd Amendment with the expectation that they can then disarm us. Politicians can throw the 2nd Amendment away (which they've pretty much done anyway) but they simply cannot take our right to keep and bear arms as a component of the 2nd Amendment. THEY must understand that they do not have that authority within or without the 2nd Amendment."
CGDustDevil
&& And more …
p s wrote:
The scary part is the 4/4 split, 4 justices gave BHO the green light to write law.
TX wrote:
The SC has become so corrupt, they can't even vote against blatant executive overreach without doing so on purely political lines. This is further proof that the left has no intention of following LAW, when they can make up law. It will only get worse from here.
CGDustDevil wrote:
Trouble is they do not see themselves as corrupt, nor does Congress (for obvious reasons) and most importantly, nor do the bulk of our citizens! They (and the majority of the citizenry) see the institution and justices as enlightened and omnipotent. The justices themselves do not even understand anymore (even Scalia!) that their role was NEVER intended to make or strike down laws. I'm sure that Scalia KNEW the difference, but he sure wasn't gonna be the only one standing around with a Constitution in his hands trying to fight 'city hall'! He well may have had plans to try to wrestle things back in a more Constitutional direction as Heller suggests. But he too was the product of the 'legal system' that lives and dies on 'legal precedent'. (Another totally cockeyed concept that our Founders would have raised hell about!!)
The bottom line is that at conception, their (SCOTUS) job was to offer opinions on special cases that may come up between states, or where the United States was a party. It was NEVER intended to 'make law', or there would be no need for the Executive Branch!
The Federalist papers make it perfectly clear what the remedies are for a runaway court & Congress. Impeachment, dethroning, elections. When so-called 'laws' slipped through the cracks and did not pass Constitutional muster, we (the citizenry) were to simply nullify them. Once nullified by the peoples' collective inattention to the statute, we were to throw the bums out and get new bums who'd pay attention to their oaths and the Constitution!
The Legislative branch makes the law... The Judicial branch High Court evaluates the laws when necessary and offers their opinion. If The People decided that the law was wrong or Unconstitutional, we were to nullify via jury nullification if anyone fell victim to the Unconstitutional laws. Our long term remedy was to get rid of the offending representative(s) who sponsored the illegitimate law.
But... The court veered off their intended path in the early 1800s when they for the 1st time exceeded their authority and reversed a state law, Unconstitutionally. (Fletcher v. Peck, 1810) This case originated when Georgia passed a law which reversed land deals in which members of Congress were involved and suspected of being involved with bribery. The Georgia law would reverse the deal if the offending Congressman/men were implicated. It's not hard to figure out why the SCOTUS came down the way they did when you understand where the court physically sat in relation to our elected officials! Yeah, they used to sit in the Capital after the government moved to the District of Columbia in 1800. No chance of any mischief there, eh?
Anyway - SCOTUS (under John Marshall) reversed the Georgia state law quite Unconstitutionally, which essentially prohibited the state from interfering with the business of Congressional bribery! Incredible as it seems, that's where the court crossed the Constitutional line between "Opinion" and "Law". And it should be no surprise to find out that land capers STILL disgrace our Congress. (Ask Harry Reid why Cliven Bundy is the ONLY rancher left in the Southern Nevada area...)
Once the SCOTUS went off on their little Unconstitutional tear in 1810, we've been in trouble to one degree or another ever since.
It got really screwy in 1907 when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes admitted in a speech: "...we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...". But 1907 was just when the speech took place. The actual legal debauchery most certainly was well underway by that time. Still, the court held to some guidelines as to the types of cases it would hear. That practice and a whole lot more went completely and utterly to hell in the 1930s under Roosevelt.
Ever since then, Congress has used the court to legislate what they cannot pass legislatively. There's a understanding of detente with reference to the court now for that reason. And in fact, the party system has gotten SO good at playing the American public, they can pit one side against the other at will. This means of course that they can support privately ANYTHING because they know the court will 'save the act' in most cases. Yet they still have the appearance of 'taking sides' which promotes excitement for 'their side'.
In fact, 'their side' is BOTH sides anymore. They could pass a mandatory dog-turd-for-dinner bill that NOBODY wants, and if the SCOTUS happens to think the people should have dog turds for dinner periodically, they'll make law out of it. All Congress has to do is pass it and get a few legal challenges. SCOTUS will do the rest.
This is why they accepted Obamacare... Both sides wanted it, but one side had to oppose it and one side had to promote it in order to generate excitement and votes at election time. Republicans of course have cashed that check 3 times now without having to drop their trousers even once. Now they're rolling out their 'alternative' to Obamacare JUST in time for the 2016 election.
It's all political theater. Congress, court, all of it. Which is why I'm no longer particularly interested in which side 'wins', because it no longer matters. The two parties are a facade, and the court makes the law for the highest bidder.
