Posted on 11/23/2015 6:11:16 AM PST by xzins
See my FReeper profile for a similar suggestion.
If we don’t kill them for the malicious taking of an innocent life, then at least we should really punish them.
Island in the Aleutians is fine, but colder would be better. :>)
For those here, who say that Trump can’t possibly be on the freedom train now, after decades of being a political chameleon; what you are really saying is that it is impossible to have an epiphany about our Founding. If THAT is true we cannot win.
Trump PROVES we can win.
Trump’s conversion was in 2011. He’s been consistently growing since then.
Romney claimed a conversion about gay issues in 2008 after the election, but then mere months later he was back supporting gay causes quasi-covertly. By 2012, he was a leak a day signaling that he was pro-gay.
Trump has done much, much better than that.
So you are saying the 10th subverts the other 9? Or the whole Constitution? Or just the 2nd?
Let’s assume in fairy tale land the 10th trumps the 2nd. Then leftist activists will set up in each and every state with their endless propaganda machines and work on the people to change their minds and vote stricter gun laws. The federal govt will perpetrate schemes, such as Fast And Furious, to enhance their goals.
Oh wait! That’s already happening.
The majority of the amendments are completely unrelated to the 10th. So there is no “subvert”... they are mutually exclusive. How can you say that the first amendment trumps the 10th? Have read these amendments?
True, Annapolis was originally called St. Mary’s City. But Lord Baltimore formed the colony long before the Constitution came into being. The First Amendment restricts the state from establishing a religion.
You might want to consider that the felons have paid their "debt to society" during their term in prison (plus, one would assume, their time under parole). I cannot think of a valid reason to deny them the right to defend themselves after their debt is paid.
I CAN, however, think of a VERY GOOD reason why felons should serve MUCH longer sentences. You see, if they cannot be trusted to legally purchase a gun (and that's what we're talking about here - LEGALLY), then why on Earth can they be trusted to be free among the rest of us? You see, they can ALWAYS obtain a gun illegally, or a knife or other weapon easily enough. Either they are trustworthy enough to own a weapon after release and their period of parole, or they should never have been released in the first place.
FYI, I am not a convicted felon (or criminal of ANY type), nor is anyone that I know or care about in any way.
As a CCW permittee, why should I have to run the risk of a ticket (or worse) every time I travel out-of-state?
Perhaps you speak with the 'authority' of the so-called constitutional lawyer presently inhabiting the White Mosque?
I am no lawyer. I am a person who rejects the legal principal of “incorporation”. Look it up. Almost nobody agrees with me, even conservative lawyers.
excellent point!
No. The US constitution in insuperable.
Completely disagree.
The delegated and enumerated powers given by the People to Congress are further restricted by the prohibitions in the " Bill of Rights". The second amendment is the most sweeping and inclusive prohibition on the powers of all levels of government, it flat out says the" right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No implied qualifying wording such as "Congress shall make no..."
There is an argument for state restrictions under the 1st amendment ( which I don't agree with) but there is absolutely no case at any level of government for any restrictions because of the 2nd amendment.
Hey, at last I’m a “person of color”.
Blue Steel.
Not sure what Trump wants to do but what ought to have happened is the states should have petitioned Congress to amend the constitution to restrict the 2nd to non-felons. As it is the 2nd is crystal clear, no US government entity at any level has the right to restrict possession. As an earlier poster pointed out, if the felons have " paid their debt to society", then after their release and a further set period of good conduct then there is no argument for restriction.
So guaranteed constitutional rights are not guaranteed rights?
...and what about people who don’t properly care for their firearms? After all, we’re talking about gun rights, aren’t we? Why isn’t anyone talking about abused firearms?
Once again TRUMP speaks the TRUTH.
Correction:
Rights are inherent to We the PEOPLE, States have power/authority, given by the same People.
IMO, the Constitution is easy to understand: Whatever so shall be illegal for one Man to do to another, so shall it be for govt. Course, it’s never read/argued that way and, hence, the crapola sandwich we have today (14th A. ‘marriages’, ‘gun control’, welfare....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.