DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign ^ | December 15, 2001 - Bill of Rights Day | N/A

[VA Advogado]

Don't forget that Martin Luther King has major streets and highways and holidays named after him.

Believe me, a lot more people had a moral sympothy for King than do the people that hate gun owners.

[Demidog]

Another approach would be for states to issue the carry permits, rather like driving licenses

Meaning that the carrying of firearms is a privilege. BZZZZZT. It isn't.

[VA Advogado]

Yes, you are correct. Lets give the powder and shot to the Crown and go home and pay our taxes. What advice do you have for people who will not allow themselves to fall into slavery?

Stop being such a Goddamn drama queen will you? You work to make the changes in the legislature.

[redrock]

"....civil disobedience..."

The KEY to returning our Nation to Constitutional Law.

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[Demidog]

The 14th amendment is not the benchmark for when the bill of rights applied to state interference with human rights. Hate to break the news to you but the 14th amendment was in response to a bunch of racists who ruled from the bench that blacks were not human.

[Demidog]

You work to make the changes in the legislature.

Tell that to Rosa Parks or Dred Scot.

[VA Advogado]

If it was required that the government give you permission to carry your firearm, there wouldn't be a second amendment. There is no necessity for a special law allowing you to carry your firearm anyhwere you please.

What is needed is for people to stop obeying these laws and work to get rid of every statute which restricts even the slightest on this matter.

Well this isnt the first time you've claimed a rather bizzare and unfounded theory of law. Your theory is great for the egotistical idiots that dont mind going to jail, but it does nothing for those that want to defend themselves without risk of arrest. For those people, the property solution is to work the legislature for change, pursuant to your first amendment right to petition your govt.

[rwfromkansas]

Wow, you are a real idiot. There is no question in my mind you would have supported the British in the Revolution. Your statement that one would be unjustified in breaking the law even if they disarmed the citizens is extremely frightening. You are no conservative.

[rwfromkansas]

thanks for posting that.

[VA Advogado]

You mean laws are greater in power about our government than the Constitution over the same government? I will call you a fool if you believe this tripe.

Excuse me while I ignore your baseless theories and try to lead my life within the legal realities of our country. I waste too much time debating theory with you numbskulls. Its time you start debating reality.

[Buckeroo]

Everyone is an idiot in your mind with your personal exception, of course.

[Demidog]

Believe me, a lot more people had a moral sympothy for King than do the people that hate gun owners.

LOL. You are insistent on re-writing history and telling us all to do it your way. People in those days were not sympathetic to King and in fact the FBI was busy trying to prove he was a communist.

They were also lynching black folks. That's how "sympathetic" they were to King's cause. At first, King was not very well liked at all.

It took time. And it took people the courage to tell the tyrants "hell no! We will no longer obey your laws."

That's what it took. Legislatures would have laughed them out of their chambers.

[Buckeroo]

I won't excuse you at all.

[VA Advogado]

You're a fool. Virtually every bellweather SCOTUS case has been the result of a law broken. The repeal of prohibition was the result of many people breaking an unconstitutional and immoral law and refusing to convict their peers while serving on juries.

Um, the supreme court didnt repeal prohibition. Try again.

[rwfromkansas]

That becomes a problem when most citizens are such damn fools they don't know how to spell their name, much less vote for people who will uphold the Constitution

[Roscoe]

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens..." -- US Supreme Court, Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

[Libloather]

You don't believe in the 2nd amendment I guess.

Sure I do. I just don't believe in Liberteens. You aren't one - are you?

[rwfromkansas]

The judiciary is a dictatorship. If you have evidence to the contrary, post.

[VA Advogado]

It took time. And it took people the courage to tell the tyrants "hell no! We will no longer obey your laws."

That's what it took. Legislatures would have laughed them out of their chambers.

Laughted out of their chambers? 3/4 of the legislatures ratifed the 14th amendment 100 years BEFORE King came to power. Try again.

[Demidog]

Well this isnt the first time you've claimed a rather bizzare and unfounded theory of law.

It's not a theory. I don't need anyone's permission to protect my life. If you're the kind of pussy who needs permission to speak and go to the bathroom, then by all means grovel in John McCain's office.

You are free to be a sniveling coward. You are not free to tell me when and where I or anyone else may carry their means of self defense.