Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arora Shooting

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Nope, it is an abridgement when you add qualifications beyond that which the constitution specifies. What are the qualifications? Oh yes, being a U.S. citizen. It doesn't say anything about being a certain status beyond that. This was addressed in other cases where voting was barred based on additional qualifications being added beyond citizenship. Where did those end up? How about Dred Scott? Another attempt which also failed.

    Secondly, the constitution is clear that you may lose a right by due process ONLY! Meaning, you committed a crime first. What you're advocating amounts to presupposing a crime will be committed and wanting to suspend the rights beforehand. Until we have time travel that isn't going to fly.
    Last edited by davdah; 08-02-2012, 12:16 PM.
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

    Comment


    • #77
      Typical of immigrants to be enemies of our rights. Since the end of the Assault Weapons Ban, crime and murder has gone down. No Brain Brit just got schooled.

      Comment


      • #78
        The return of fedNUT. I thought you'd been banned. If you had half a brain you'd be dangerous.
        "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

        Comment


        • #79
          The problem is they are still thinking in terms of where they came from, IN England, you can't own a pistol. You are under constant surveillance and are told it's for your own good. They don't even have a constitution so the concept is entirely foreign to them. In Russia they were even worse off. If you spoke out against a politician, you were sent to the gulag or siberia. As a matter of fact, it is still happening to this day. Alex Navalny was recently charged with crimes against the state for merely writing about corruption in the soviet regime. There was also the band that was jailed for similar offences a month or two back.
          This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by davdah View Post
            Nope, it is an abridgement when you add qualifications beyond that which the constitution specifies. What are the qualifications? Oh yes, being a U.S. citizen. It doesn't say anything about being a certain status beyond that. This was addressed in other cases where voting was barred based on additional qualifications being added beyond citizenship. Where did those end up? How about Dred Scott? Another attempt which also failed.

            Secondly, the constitution is clear that you may lose a right by due process ONLY! Meaning, you committed a crime first. What you're advocating amounts to presupposing a crime will be committed and wanting to suspend the rights beforehand. Until we have time travel that isn't going to fly.
            You can call it all you want but it's not abridgment to prevent mentally ill person from purchasing and owning a weapon. We already do that with convicted felons , why not with mentally sick?

            Dredd Scott is a guy who lost his case in a freedom claim back in 1857.
            That was before passage of 14th amendment. And I don't see how do you connect it to
            gun laws
            [IMG:left]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_71xng3bfgYI/TTr2VioHvHI/AAAAAAAAAF8/S3D_j5sPwTo/s1600/62846660_Dali.jpg[/IMG] [i]When Andre Breton discovered for himself my paintings, he was clearly shocked by excremental details polluting it. I was surprised.

            Comment


            • #81
              It is an abridgement when it violates the constitutional protections. The point of dred scott is the tendency to expand, not contract freedoms and rights. Eventually his individual loss turned into a victory for a lot of people.
              This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by davdah View Post
                It is an abridgement when it violates the constitutional protections. The point of dred scott is the tendency to expand, not contract freedoms and rights. Eventually his individual loss turned into a victory for a lot of people.
                Convicted felons in most states can't buy weapons legally as we speak. Is it abridgment of right?

                How making sure buyer is not mentally ill before selling him or her a weapon is an "abridgment"?
                [IMG:left]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_71xng3bfgYI/TTr2VioHvHI/AAAAAAAAAF8/S3D_j5sPwTo/s1600/62846660_Dali.jpg[/IMG] [i]When Andre Breton discovered for himself my paintings, he was clearly shocked by excremental details polluting it. I was surprised.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by davdah View Post
                  Nope, it is an abridgement when you add qualifications beyond that which the constitution specifies. What are the qualifications? Oh yes, being a U.S. citizen. It doesn't say anything about being a certain status beyond that. This was addressed in other cases where voting was barred based on additional qualifications being added beyond citizenship. Where did those end up? How about Dred Scott? Another attempt which also failed.

                  Secondly, the constitution is clear that you may lose a right by due process ONLY! Meaning, you committed a crime first. What you're advocating amounts to presupposing a crime will be committed and wanting to suspend the rights beforehand. Until we have time travel that isn't going to fly.
                  You mean like all laws necessary and proper?
                  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by federale86 View Post
                    Typical of immigrants to be enemies of our rights. Since the end of the Assault Weapons Ban, crime and murder has gone down. No Brain Brit just got schooled.
                    Violent crime and murder have gone down for three decades now, if you look at the Dept of Justice statistics.
                    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by OldE3 View Post
                      Convicted felons in most states can't buy weapons legally as we speak. Is it abridgment of right?

                      How making sure buyer is not mentally ill before selling him or her a weapon is an "abridgment"?
                      Convicted felons lost rights using due process. See 14th amendment. Anything else is not due process and is a violation. Necessary and proper doesn't grant the revocation without due process Hudson. That doesn't fly either.

                      Why the focus on mentally challenged? They are obviously under scrutiny as it stands now with the questions asked on the purchase form and the background check. It can't be expected the investigation would segregate all those ineligible but it snares the overwhelming majority.
                      This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by davdah View Post
                        The problem is they are still thinking in terms of where they came from, IN England, you can't own a pistol. You are under constant surveillance and are told it's for your own good.
                        Whereas in USA we all should have guns and use them to kill the bad guys just like in the old Westerns. The mighty 2nd Rights Amendment is set in stone never to be challenged. Never to be changed. Simple facts for simple minds. More guns in circulation has been proven to show more gun related death and injuries. That's the only conclusion from the figures worldwide.

                        "Violent crime and murder have gone down for three decades now, if you look at the Dept of Justice statistics." Correct and yet gun related incident numbers have stayed more or less the same in keeping with the above "Wild West" attitude. That's how it will stay unless there is some meaningful change. How many more innocent people have to be killed before we wake up and realize this was our fault because we allowed ridiculous gun laws that actually promote gun ownership and use? One look at FL's "stand your ground" law proves that. It actually forces one to fight fire with fire. No other State has such a law. No wonder the NRA strenuously backed that bill and other similar ones because they and the industry stand to make more money out of gun sales. Follow the money...

                        http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra...l-thing,28858/
                        "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                        Comment

                        Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                        Home Page

                        Immigration Daily

                        Archives

                        Processing times

                        Immigration forms

                        Discussion board

                        Resources

                        Blogs

                        Twitter feed

                        Immigrant Nation

                        Attorney2Attorney

                        CLE Workshops

                        Immigration books

                        Advertise on ILW

                        EB-5

                        移民日报

                        About ILW.COM

                        Connect to us

                        Questions/Comments

                        SUBSCRIBE

                        Immigration Daily



                        Working...
                        X