PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on January 14, 2020, 11:11:47 AM
-
It seems I usually disagree with change.org's petitions, but this is one I can get behind:
https://www.change.org/p/united-states-supreme-court-impeachment-of-virginia-governor-northam-for-infringing-on-2nd-amendment-rights?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=251818f0-36dd-11ea-bb13-a399ecc31959&share_bandit_exp=initial-19849858-en-US&share_bandit_var=v1&utm_content=fht-19849858-en-us%3Av10
Governor Ralph Northam has presented a state wide gun ban that would disarm law abiding citizens, infringing on constitutional rights granted by the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendment as well as Virginia Constitution Article 1 section 13. This kind of proposition is unconstitutional and should not be allowed.
His plan for implementing and enforcing such a ban would be using local law enforcement and National Guard soldiers to gather guns. Doing so would also be taking privately owned weapons from the ones ordered to enforce the new law.
Law enforcement and the citizen soldiers have taken oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Governor Northam's proposition to ban privately owned and registered weapons would violate such an oath.
Lastly, banning weapons only effects the law abiding citizen, criminals will always find a way to obtain a weapon to use to commit a crime. Disarming would only cause more innocent lives to be taken by the hands of a heartless criminal.
-
I agree with the intent BUT: Have any petitions on change.org ever accomplished their stated goals?
I did see a term for online petitions: slacktivisim. It is the kind of feel-good support for something that is done from the comfort of one’s home and involves only the need to press some buttons. Wikipedia has an interesting article on slacktivism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism)
-
I think they are wavering on the sporting rifles confiscation and ban due to a huge backlash from law enforcement and citizens.
To me, and many others, all gun laws other than the Second Amendment are INFRINGEMENTS and illegal. Corrupt courts have upheld them to the point we now have 22,000 gun laws on the books at the Fed, State and Local levels. The Supreme Court needs to do their job and hear cases on these illegal, Unconstitutional laws.
-
I think they are wavering on the sporting rifles confiscation and ban due to a huge backlash from law enforcement and citizens.
To me, and many others, all gun laws other than the Second Amendment are INFRINGEMENTS and illegal. Corrupt courts have upheld them to the point we now have 22,000 gun laws on the books at the Fed, State and Local levels. The Supreme Court needs to do their job and hear cases on these illegal, Unconstitutional laws.
Heller was the worst ruling that Scalia ever wrote. Yes, he properly acknowledged that the RKBA was an individual right. (Sadly, 4 justices claimed otherwise.) and his opinion in this area was brilliantly written.
However, he acknowledged that some restrictions are reasonable (I don’t recall the specifics on this in his opinion, but I think he was acknowledging some of Breyer’s arguments in Breyer’s dissent.)
So I agree with you Anthony.
In his opinion Scalia wrote:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subject to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of a right takes out of hands of government - even the Third Branch of Government - the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
-
Heller was the worst ruling that Scalia ever wrote. Yes, he properly acknowledged that the RKBA was an individual right. (Sadly, 4 justices claimed otherwise.) and his opinion in this area was brilliantly written.
However, he acknowledged that some restrictions are reasonable (I don’t recall the specifics on this in his opinion, but I think he was acknowledging some of Breyer’s arguments in Breyer’s dissent.)
So I agree with you Anthony.
In his opinion Scalia wrote:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subject to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of a right takes out of hands of government - even the Third Branch of Government - the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
Never, and I mean NEVER let government or the courts decide what is REASONABLE for you concerning your Natural Rights. They are NOT granted by government so can not be taken away by government. Scalia was WRONG on that one.
-
Never, and I mean NEVER let government or the courts decide what is REASONABLE for you concerning your Natural Rights. They are NOT granted by government so can not be taken away by government. Scalia was WRONG on that one.
So you maintain that you've the RIGHT to a hydrogen bomb? Or a fully armed F35? Yu get the idea.
-
So you maintain that you've the RIGHT to a hydrogen bomb? Or a fully armed F35? Yu get the idea.
Just stop. We've discussed this before.
Reductio ad Absurdum.
-
So you maintain that you've the RIGHT to a hydrogen bomb? Or a fully armed F35? Yu get the idea.
Well, if you want to take a discussion to the absurd, please explain to me how my having a hydrogen bomb infringes upon the rights of anyone else.
-
So you maintain that you've the RIGHT to a hydrogen bomb? Or a fully armed F35? Yu get the idea.
Right cue the fucking moron shows up and goes out of his way to prove how brainless he is.
-
Oh thank goodness. I posted in a another thread and there was no abuse. I was starting to worry you'd all been replaced.
-
Oh thank goodness. I posted in a another thread and there was no abuse. I was starting to worry you'd all been replaced.
Compare/contrast your posts in the other thread with your post in this thread. Perhaps that might explain the differences in responses.
-
Oh thank goodness. I posted in a another thread and there was no abuse. I was starting to worry you'd all been replaced.
Did you say anything stupid in the other thread?
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a clue there.