-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Three Percenters
- Thread starter pewpewfever
- Start date
I am a backer and and believer in the constitution and where we stand today. I am willing to travel home at a moments notice to help keep the constitution the way it IS!
The reason we have the 1A is because of the 2A.
Fleet
The reason we have the 1A is because of the 2A.
Fleet
The supreme court is a creation of Congress, its not really a co equal branch of government so probably not,
Holding them in awe is total bullshit, they are Democrats and republicans first, each and every judge an emperor. Trump needs to start removing the incompetent, starting with RBG,.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Holding them in awe is total bullshit, they are Democrats and republicans first, each and every judge an emperor. Trump needs to start removing the incompetent, starting with RBG,.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Last edited:
You raise one other excellent point which is the Supreme Court interpretation... and that bears mentioning, too. Because the Supremes are tasked not to interpret the constitution, but to interpret laws and regulations passed by the legislatures of the USA and the states and localities and ensure that those meet the bar set by the Constitution.
To do that, they have to interpret the intent of the document and what the framers has in mind. Which is why there is so much Constitutional scholarship that continues, examining the underlying documents and arguments and letters and transcripts of the men who signed it and who contributed to it.
Fast forward to the 1960s when much was in flux... and you got an whole generation who wanted change now.... at any price. You got revisionist historians. You got revolutionaries blowing thing up. You have an unpopular war.
And I that timeframe, a conscious decision was made that the Amendment process is too slow, too messy and too polarizing in a time of mass media and us-vs-them politics. The failure of the ERA in the 70s and 80’s cemented that view in a big way.
So some too-smart-by-half academics and legal scholars and political scientists figured out that you don’t need to follow the constitution if you simply put people on benches that will always interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights through the “right sort of lens.” That lens could be Marxism, Social Justice, Race... whatever. As long as they took a liberal (vs. fundamental) interpretation of the Constitution, laws and regulations could be passed and enforced that did not meet the intent of the framers. But who cares? The ‘new’ interpretations of the Constitution took into account the wills of judges specifically chosen to interpret the Constitution in a specific way.
This is why, since Clarence Thomas and even before... really since the Reagan years... the appointment if ANY judge has been so contested. When Reagan unexpectedly beat Carter, for the first time there was a social conservative in the WH (and remember Reagan was outside the Republican mainstream in a big way... the left was terrified of him as they are if Trump).
Now the battle had to move to the courts. Court packing and litmus tests for judges became the way of the world. And we now see massive protests, angst and even violence around the judicial process.
Why? Because if you realize you can’t sell your ideas or worldview to voters... change the rules. Make the voters irrelevant by handing the power to non-elected ideologues who can say that the Constitution.is whatever they want.
This is why Constitutionalist justices like Kavanagh, Thomas and the late Scalia are hated and feared by the left. They want activist justices like Ginsburg and Sotomator and the members of the 9th Circuit who will
Legislate from the bench, not apply a rigorous standard to interpreting a law through the lens of the framers... not a lens of modern progressive dogma (or right wing Christian nutball dogma for that matter...)
So to your very good point... the interpretation is what it is. But interpretation is naturally a subjective thing and subject to being hijacked just as easily as a political party or a legislature. If justices and judges are chosen based on their understanding of the Constitution, then things should run as intended. When they are chosen to bypass the legislative process, we are back to our non co-equal dilemma.
And last thought is that the Constitution does not grant citizens anything. We are, per the framers, born with those rights as human beings. The Constitution limits the power of government to infring on our natural rights. Some think it is a document that grants us things. It does not. So the Constitution (to my Prohibition comment earlier) is never to be used as a basis for taking something away. Whether your money or your freedom or your privacy or your personal property or your right to say what you want. But by giving government more power, some interpretations can have that effect.... which is never good.
Anyway... I smell bacon! Too much deep thought for this early and before coffee. Excuse for controversial remarks or historical omissions.
Sirhr
@Sean the Nailer
Everybody here who has posted has painted a "part" of the picture of the elephant in the room. The elephant is real.
Bender once posted about an older incident going back to "the Johnson County War", relating to a book he had read, "Banditti of the Plains", we all know about Wyatt Earp, we all know about the KKK after the unpleasantness.
Hitlery is no different that the villains in the three mentioned above.
There has always been a level of wealthy that has never followed codified law. And bc they were wealthy and movers and shakers, they were above the law. Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
Is it right ? Hell no.... is it real and the way it is ? Yes.
Every generation has had a "prophet" who warned. Every generation has had a writer who "told the story".
Every generation has had worker bees who ignored both the prophet and the historian, because it didnt concern them... ala' Martin Niemoller...
And every generation has had 3% people who lived through their generation and were the speed bump that kept the "uber rich" from becoming real Hitlers or worse.
What you see, and perchance lament in your post above has been, is, and will be, because the uber rich are into making $. As long as you spend $ to survive, you feed the beast.
Generations have lived within but apart, and made voting blocs that kinda sorta kept the beast in its place and allowed many to prosper throughout history without disturbing the beasts feeding habits.
And the poorest worker bees got used up. Ask any 70+ year old poor southern black, especially one living in a northern shithole democratic run city...
Why does it seem worse now ? Electronic media. People are aware because electronic media allows everyone today to be both prophet and historian, and to see what the beast preferred the worker bees to not recognize.
The beast has fed on the cheap labor of the poor and immigrant, and poorly educated.
The beast has fed on the tax base of the middle class.
The propaganda "American Dream" "Horatio Alger" story was to keep the worker bees fat, happy, and working, and paying tax, and the police force was to keep the lower rabble in its place working for slave wages, and out of the middle class neighborhoods, ahh, keep the n, the spic, the xx, in their place.... the Johnson County War was to keep the immigrant white trash in their place.
That's forever recorded history.
World economics have changed with population explosions. The status quo cannot be maintained when the middle class shrinks to the point, the great unwashed lower class begins to threaten the beast.
The beast allows the lower class to rise, to threaten the shrinking middle class, who demands police protection, and you have fergusons, antifa, and all the shit you see posted today. And it keeps the people divided fighting for their slice of the pie, against each other, just like hide members attacking other hide members for having differing opinions or thoughts.
Historically, it comes to a point Marie says, let them eat cake....
As long as the beast manages to keep people divided, the cake eaters arent united enough to sharpen the apparatus. The same electronic media that educates the cake eaters, and makes them angry, also divides them.
The 3% people are just plain people who refuse to give the beast their soul, and work on, living their life, generally successfully, and are the speed bump between the beast and the cake eaters.
That is historically where we are, Sean, and HitleryMarie hasn't openly said, "let them eat cake" and lit the fuse....
HitleryMarie, NancyMarie, ChuckMarie, NadlerMarie, and so forth... they are getting there.
Ymmv...
Everybody here who has posted has painted a "part" of the picture of the elephant in the room. The elephant is real.
Bender once posted about an older incident going back to "the Johnson County War", relating to a book he had read, "Banditti of the Plains", we all know about Wyatt Earp, we all know about the KKK after the unpleasantness.
Hitlery is no different that the villains in the three mentioned above.
There has always been a level of wealthy that has never followed codified law. And bc they were wealthy and movers and shakers, they were above the law. Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
Is it right ? Hell no.... is it real and the way it is ? Yes.
Every generation has had a "prophet" who warned. Every generation has had a writer who "told the story".
Every generation has had worker bees who ignored both the prophet and the historian, because it didnt concern them... ala' Martin Niemoller...
And every generation has had 3% people who lived through their generation and were the speed bump that kept the "uber rich" from becoming real Hitlers or worse.
What you see, and perchance lament in your post above has been, is, and will be, because the uber rich are into making $. As long as you spend $ to survive, you feed the beast.
Generations have lived within but apart, and made voting blocs that kinda sorta kept the beast in its place and allowed many to prosper throughout history without disturbing the beasts feeding habits.
And the poorest worker bees got used up. Ask any 70+ year old poor southern black, especially one living in a northern shithole democratic run city...
Why does it seem worse now ? Electronic media. People are aware because electronic media allows everyone today to be both prophet and historian, and to see what the beast preferred the worker bees to not recognize.
The beast has fed on the cheap labor of the poor and immigrant, and poorly educated.
The beast has fed on the tax base of the middle class.
The propaganda "American Dream" "Horatio Alger" story was to keep the worker bees fat, happy, and working, and paying tax, and the police force was to keep the lower rabble in its place working for slave wages, and out of the middle class neighborhoods, ahh, keep the n, the spic, the xx, in their place.... the Johnson County War was to keep the immigrant white trash in their place.
That's forever recorded history.
World economics have changed with population explosions. The status quo cannot be maintained when the middle class shrinks to the point, the great unwashed lower class begins to threaten the beast.
The beast allows the lower class to rise, to threaten the shrinking middle class, who demands police protection, and you have fergusons, antifa, and all the shit you see posted today. And it keeps the people divided fighting for their slice of the pie, against each other, just like hide members attacking other hide members for having differing opinions or thoughts.
Historically, it comes to a point Marie says, let them eat cake....
As long as the beast manages to keep people divided, the cake eaters arent united enough to sharpen the apparatus. The same electronic media that educates the cake eaters, and makes them angry, also divides them.
The 3% people are just plain people who refuse to give the beast their soul, and work on, living their life, generally successfully, and are the speed bump between the beast and the cake eaters.
That is historically where we are, Sean, and HitleryMarie hasn't openly said, "let them eat cake" and lit the fuse....
HitleryMarie, NancyMarie, ChuckMarie, NadlerMarie, and so forth... they are getting there.
Ymmv...
And to see Huskey’s point in absolute clarity... in recent history... look up a guy named Austin Goolsbee.
Watch some of his interviews, especially those where he explains how he and his team of academics created legislation to create the ACA. And filled it with Traps and triggers to ensure that it would be nearly impossible to undo, despite its unconstitutional components.
A poster boy for how the process is broken... we’ll always have the Hillaries and the Bloomberg’s and the Soros James Bond Villian types. It is this breed of courtesan that must never be allowed to thrive in America... the un-elected, The zealots. The hijackers.
Cheers, Sirhr
Watch some of his interviews, especially those where he explains how he and his team of academics created legislation to create the ACA. And filled it with Traps and triggers to ensure that it would be nearly impossible to undo, despite its unconstitutional components.
A poster boy for how the process is broken... we’ll always have the Hillaries and the Bloomberg’s and the Soros James Bond Villian types. It is this breed of courtesan that must never be allowed to thrive in America... the un-elected, The zealots. The hijackers.
Cheers, Sirhr
And Sir hr,
records the historical progression that the beast used to get us here. Much better than I ever could.
To answer pew, the 3% will enforce "their" understanding of the Constitution whether it be old English, new English version, or supreme court version, "AS LONG AS IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT TAKE A PERCEIVED FREEDOM FROM THEM"
They will FIGHT any constitutional version that steals a perceived freedom, and the majority of hide 3%ers will fight over the 2nd Amendment views expressed here.
It will vary....
When those "varied" unite, it scares the f out of the beast.....
records the historical progression that the beast used to get us here. Much better than I ever could.
To answer pew, the 3% will enforce "their" understanding of the Constitution whether it be old English, new English version, or supreme court version, "AS LONG AS IT BLATANTLY DOES NOT TAKE A PERCEIVED FREEDOM FROM THEM"
They will FIGHT any constitutional version that steals a perceived freedom, and the majority of hide 3%ers will fight over the 2nd Amendment views expressed here.
It will vary....
When those "varied" unite, it scares the f out of the beast.....
Isn't that all white people?
I had a professor, I can’t recall if it was a history prof or a law prof, who insisted that Marie never actually said “Let them eat cake,” and that it was revolutionist propaganda (I.e., fake news).
Doesnt matter at this point, true or false. As an allegory or parable, it makes the point, that politicians do things that trigger when the people have had enough.
Historians also argue that "cake" meant "bread" and the people were so poor they couldnt afford bread, which along with a few more social issues, led to the FR, and sharpened apparatuses...
Education and professors are dangerous things combined.... ?
Your professor was probably right. The general interpretation is that she was referring to 'cake' in terms of bread or 'raised cakes' of dough that was commonly eaten in the lower classes of French society. And the context was that the peasants were starving/hungry. And her statement was something along the lines of "well, they can eat bread" with the concept that there was plenty of bread. Though not much else.
So your professor was almost certainly right. A small statement became an outstanding bit of fodder for the pamphleteers and cafe-revolutionaries of pre-Revolutionary France. And the Sans-Culottes took the statement and twisted it brilliantly to inflame the pesasants.
Nothing to lose your head over...
Cheers,
Sirhr
“We the people” are the final say on the constitution not the Supreme Court. Let them try and remove the second amendment. That’s the beauty of the constitution.. it was written in layman English American, not lawyerese
@pewpewfever
Good to see you are coming here to get an understanding of Constitutional Law.
What they have taught you in "Law School" about "interpretation", "power of the Courts" etc., shows that your law degree is just a sheep skin piece of toilet paper.
Use the non ink side to wipe your self, the nap will make you cleaner.
Good to see you are coming here to get an understanding of Constitutional Law.
What they have taught you in "Law School" about "interpretation", "power of the Courts" etc., shows that your law degree is just a sheep skin piece of toilet paper.
Use the non ink side to wipe your self, the nap will make you cleaner.
The word ‘infringed’ is going to be a hard word for destroyers of 2A Rights to get around. The gunfire is gonna be deafening and the Rockets red glare and thoughts of the Alamo will be on many people’s minds.
Or Latin... which was intentional as all get-up!
The Magna Carta was written in Latin, in part because it meant that the average John Bull could not read it! So interpretation was left to the educated classes.
The Constitution was certainly based, in part, on the Magna Carta, but philosophers since that time had extended some of the principles of 'natural rights' and had eliminated the divine rule concept that went back to kings (Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for a system of government... I mean, just because some moistened bimp lobbed a scimitar at me does not make me emperor...). But unlike the Magna Carta, the authors wanted it written in plain, vernacular English such that any lay-person could understand it. Further, it was printed far and wide, since pamphleteering was the Facebook of its day... and Ben Franklin understood that better than anyone.
The whole idea of "of the people, by the people, for the people" was ensured by the idea that everyone could understand the simple terms. And it was the genius of Jefferson and his ability to write concisely and clearly... that gave us a document that is pretty plain for all to understand. That is, unless you want to intentionally fuzzify it. But since that's hard to do, you accuse Jefferson of being a mysoginist and an old white slave-owner (he was in his '30s when he wrote it... hardly an old man), and claim, therefore, it is an invalid document.
If you can't impugn the evidence... destroy the source and make the evidence worthless.
Where have we heard that before?
Cheers,
Sirhr
Oh and because what's a deep Constitutional discussion without some Python....
am wondering what state he is in so we can have is license removed,,, gotta start pulling these fuckers out by the root before they get their lifetime appointments.
Hi,
@ArmyJerry
If you are referring to pewpew.....she would be from same State as you; straight up 45.
Sincerely,
Theis
@ArmyJerry
If you are referring to pewpew.....she would be from same State as you; straight up 45.
Sincerely,
Theis
Hey, we need lawyers on our side! So if he'es here as a shooter, welcome aboard and hope we just demonstrated that just because there is a high-percentage of patriots, veterans, three-percenters, whatever here... we are not all a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth Visigoths just waiting to load the Ryder trucks with fertilizer and head for capital city.
You won't find a more law-abiding, thoughtful, insightful, erudite group on the Interwebs... mostly.
Out of curiosity, OP, what Law School? And how did the professors treat things like history and interpretation? How does the worldview here differ (or match) the education leading to your JD?
Cheers,
Sirhr
Last read was the cake =/= raised bread was correct yet the whole phrase was used as the total lack of knowledge the oppressive government had towards the lower class, because they were blinded by their own personal thirst for opulence and lost the feel of the population.
In the end, if enough people believe it, historically, those believers lynched a lot of people....
It is very important we tell the truth... and hold liars accountable...
Aw crap I am late to this rodeo...Is there any whiskey left?
OP, first off, welcome to the Hide. You should not be "afraid" of being affiliated with a cause that you truly believe in and hold a passion for. I understand that there is an active media shit-smearing campaign to paint anything pro-gun and pro-liberty as some sort of racist, antisocial wacko bullshit and you do not want to jeopardize your career. But at the same time, the reason why our society has been fucked, cucked, and pussified for the past 10 or so years is because way too many good men have allowed themselves to think that they need to be worried about offending some people or shit before speaking their opinions or putting their creativity into good uses.
Fuck that people-pleasing shit. I have never been a people pleaser in my life and I never will be. If you are worthy of my respect and recognition, I treat you just like a brother and I will go out of my way to make you feel welcome. Anybody else can GTFO and choke on a dick, and will be told just that, if they approach me randomly and tell me that they are "offended" by my perfectly legal and non-threatening actions or speech. Don't like the fact that I am carrying a gun? Don't like that Smith & Wesson duffel bag and decal on the back of my motorcycle? Don't like it that I just held a door open for a lady and carried her bags for her? Don't like it that my friends and I had been talking about shooting, reloading, AR-building, and competitions the whole time we were sitting at the burger joint? Well tough luck kiddo and deal with it. I got far more important things taking up my mind than your pathetic cock smoking SJW fantasies. I ain't getting paid to please you.
Secondly, life itself ain't nothing but a game of poker or blackjack. We are all sitting at the table so might as well play the game. We lose by not taking the risk. I give out this same kind of advice on many non-firearms forums as well when telling otherwise overly stressed and worried folks to just relax and live their lives to THEIR standards, not what others tell them to do. The minute you hesitate, fear, or compromise, it ain't satisfying anymore. We all take risks every day, so I certainly wouldn't give a rat's ass about readily putting my time and effort behind such an important cause to the safety of our society as the 2nd Amendment and RKBA.
And what's this about a list? Hell, we are all probably on a list just by buying guns and ammo, and posting on boards like this one. The most important thing is: Do we give a fuck? I certainly don't, otherwise I would not be active in the RKBA community.
I am an adherent of 'The Cowboy Way' and as long as I can keep ridin', I am sure as hell gonna keep ridin' and continuously defend our way of life and our very tools of safety, security, and self reliance from the vermin who wants to see us disarmed.
For a better heads up on what the term "Three Percenter" signifies: As many here have already pointed out, it refers to the 3% of the population of the original 13 Colonies who had taken arms and actively fought the British army and their German and Native American mercenaries. The actual term used in modern civil rights parlance had been coined by the late 2nd Amendment blogger Mike Vanderboegh (RIP) during the mid-2000's along with his co-bloggers Dave Codrea (War On Guns) and Oleg Volk (The High Road). This trio had provided far more extensive coverage of the fight for gun rights as well as the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Clinton regime than anyone else could have, and for this, the Three Percenters had been smeared as a "hate group" by the SPLC. I am one of the ORIGINAL Three Percenters. I got to know these gentlemen via The High Road Forums when I reposted one of Mr. Vanderboegh's kickass articles titled: Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules: What Can A Handgun Do Against An Army. The original site where this merry band of Three Percenters gathered and the final design for the iconic flag of the 13-Star Colonial and the 3 vertical bars in the field was drafted and produced, was here: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
Now it is a memorial site dedicated to the original founder of the movement who has left us too soon. But those of us who have rode with him from the beginning ain't leaving this fight anytime soon...
OP, first off, welcome to the Hide. You should not be "afraid" of being affiliated with a cause that you truly believe in and hold a passion for. I understand that there is an active media shit-smearing campaign to paint anything pro-gun and pro-liberty as some sort of racist, antisocial wacko bullshit and you do not want to jeopardize your career. But at the same time, the reason why our society has been fucked, cucked, and pussified for the past 10 or so years is because way too many good men have allowed themselves to think that they need to be worried about offending some people or shit before speaking their opinions or putting their creativity into good uses.
Fuck that people-pleasing shit. I have never been a people pleaser in my life and I never will be. If you are worthy of my respect and recognition, I treat you just like a brother and I will go out of my way to make you feel welcome. Anybody else can GTFO and choke on a dick, and will be told just that, if they approach me randomly and tell me that they are "offended" by my perfectly legal and non-threatening actions or speech. Don't like the fact that I am carrying a gun? Don't like that Smith & Wesson duffel bag and decal on the back of my motorcycle? Don't like it that I just held a door open for a lady and carried her bags for her? Don't like it that my friends and I had been talking about shooting, reloading, AR-building, and competitions the whole time we were sitting at the burger joint? Well tough luck kiddo and deal with it. I got far more important things taking up my mind than your pathetic cock smoking SJW fantasies. I ain't getting paid to please you.
Secondly, life itself ain't nothing but a game of poker or blackjack. We are all sitting at the table so might as well play the game. We lose by not taking the risk. I give out this same kind of advice on many non-firearms forums as well when telling otherwise overly stressed and worried folks to just relax and live their lives to THEIR standards, not what others tell them to do. The minute you hesitate, fear, or compromise, it ain't satisfying anymore. We all take risks every day, so I certainly wouldn't give a rat's ass about readily putting my time and effort behind such an important cause to the safety of our society as the 2nd Amendment and RKBA.
And what's this about a list? Hell, we are all probably on a list just by buying guns and ammo, and posting on boards like this one. The most important thing is: Do we give a fuck? I certainly don't, otherwise I would not be active in the RKBA community.
I am an adherent of 'The Cowboy Way' and as long as I can keep ridin', I am sure as hell gonna keep ridin' and continuously defend our way of life and our very tools of safety, security, and self reliance from the vermin who wants to see us disarmed.
For a better heads up on what the term "Three Percenter" signifies: As many here have already pointed out, it refers to the 3% of the population of the original 13 Colonies who had taken arms and actively fought the British army and their German and Native American mercenaries. The actual term used in modern civil rights parlance had been coined by the late 2nd Amendment blogger Mike Vanderboegh (RIP) during the mid-2000's along with his co-bloggers Dave Codrea (War On Guns) and Oleg Volk (The High Road). This trio had provided far more extensive coverage of the fight for gun rights as well as the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Clinton regime than anyone else could have, and for this, the Three Percenters had been smeared as a "hate group" by the SPLC. I am one of the ORIGINAL Three Percenters. I got to know these gentlemen via The High Road Forums when I reposted one of Mr. Vanderboegh's kickass articles titled: Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules: What Can A Handgun Do Against An Army. The original site where this merry band of Three Percenters gathered and the final design for the iconic flag of the 13-Star Colonial and the 3 vertical bars in the field was drafted and produced, was here: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com
Now it is a memorial site dedicated to the original founder of the movement who has left us too soon. But those of us who have rode with him from the beginning ain't leaving this fight anytime soon...
Last edited:
Anything approximating appropriate or truthful gets poisoned at the well and made into a honey pot.
III% association seems to fall into that category. There are many other examples of those tactics at play.
Does not matter how good, honorable, or innocent you are. They would figure out a way to label grandma down at the nursing home an xenophobic extremist if she does not conform and comply.
III% association seems to fall into that category. There are many other examples of those tactics at play.
Does not matter how good, honorable, or innocent you are. They would figure out a way to label grandma down at the nursing home an xenophobic extremist if she does not conform and comply.
Thank you for the article. After reading, it appears that particular "news" outlet "The Hate report" is in keeping with the NYT and SPLC, and other leftist rags.
Even in the article you linked, it stated the 3 percent groups issued orders to their members to stand down and no longer protect the white supremacy bullshit.
The only reason the 3% were there in Charlottesville was to protect the 1st amendment activist against Antifa commie anarchists who show up to stir the put and hurt people.
You read the article you posted, right? And you read this one which was linked within the article you posted? 3% stand down order given
ANTIFA and the Nazis are one in the same,,, both groups are Democrat party members and supporters.
If the price of civil discourse is that it is OK to lie but out of bounds to call someone out for being a liar, then that is too high a price to pay. No sale.
The Constitution was conveniently written in English. No interpretation is needed. To the extent it is interpreted, it is always done to say it means exactly the opposite of what it actually says or to say it says something that is completely absent. The power of SCOTUS and the inferior courts is only to determine the facts of a case based on the evidence and measure a statute against the Constitution or an actual practice or effect against a statute.
The power to interpret is wholely a power proclaimed and asserted by themselves and has no foundation in law. Just like their Sovereign Immunity and Reasonable Exception doctrines, these are fictions invented without substance. The only purpose is to subvert the law and in doing so, undermine the foundation of the Republic.
So who is seditious now?
the purpose is to expand unconstitutional federal power over the "states and the people". They caused the last civil war and will be the cause of the next one which is at our door step.
Last edited:
This whole forum is pretty much III% Advanced Marksmanship Division whether we identify as such or not.
Don't let fear, political peer pressure, and social stigma control you. This is how they sow division and keep you in line. Associate with good people, stay away from bad ones. Or not.
Diverse groups are diverse.
Don't let fear, political peer pressure, and social stigma control you. This is how they sow division and keep you in line. Associate with good people, stay away from bad ones. Or not.
Diverse groups are diverse.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not "living and breathing" documents. They are legal documents which were written in plain English and is such a way as anyone could understand them. That said, they are not subject to interpretation.
You're a lawyer, so you say, so you should understand whenever the word "shall" appears it's time to pay attention because that's a very commanding word.
I'm my policies at work when it says "Officer's shall not...". That means we better not do whatever that policy section says not to do.
"..., the right of the people to keep (store) and bear (possess on their person) Arms, shall not be infringed."
Other than leftists who believe in revisionist history, for the life of me, I have no idea how anyone can "interpret" the second amendment as not applicable to private ownership of firearms.
AND
Since at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, all firearms were "military style" then the Second Amendment applies to the get the fucking government away from infringing on the ownership "military style" weapons now.
That seems very in keeping with the 2A as it was written and intended to be carried out according to the Bill of Rights, and Federalist No. 29.
Hamilton painstakingly articulated the danger to liberty a standing Army posed, and hence when Madison wrote the 2A, wanted The People to be armed to fight a standing Army should shit hit the fan.
Yes, and I mention that stand down order in the original post. I think the point if the article was that the order did not prevent the mosque attackers from calling themselves three percenters.
Do you think individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear their own nuclear weapons?
Just because they "claimed" a status/title" doesn't mean this reflects reality.
We have been bombarded with these "hate crimes" only to learn that the vast majority
are indeed carried out by those who would claim injury by said.
The "alt right" is a recent product of the MSM to seemingly bring balance to the
presence of "BLM/Antifa".
In truth the kkk/nazi/white power orgs are all but a very small group of folks that have been laughed
out of any serious consideration for decades.
Like we've seen recently the russian boogyman was pulled out of the cold war closet
to creat an evil that must be righted.
All of these things are a byproduct of identity politics and inevitably where it leads.
R
I stand corrected. But, just because some shithead claims something doesn't mean they're in keeping with the actual beliefs of that group.
Just because a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, does that mean all Muslims are to blame?
I have my personal limitations. Nukes? Not for me. Too expensive and too much collateral damage. unless we're talking the Fourth generation ones with a yield of like 50-100 tons of TNT and 99%+ efficient consumption rate of DT with nearly no fallout.
I digress. No, generally no possession of nukes ?
False analogy.
An argument meant to muddy the waters of the rights of the people.
R
What is established historical fact is that the principal objective of the British Army of the raid on April 18-19, 1775 was the seizure of cannons held by the local militia. Any muskets and musket balls were just an ancillary objective, an afterthought. These were artillery every bit the equal in quality and range to what the British Army had. Forget for a moment that some of these had been taken from British arsenals at the point of very pointy bayonet by actors as serious as a heart attack.
Those colonists considered possession of them a natural right. The British started that war with a monumental miscalculation and a predictable atrocity. The colonists went on to defeat the world's lone superpower and codify that right and others into the highest law of the land. The express purpose was as a defense against any foreign or domestic enemy, further supported by their public fear of a standing army, which today could be defined as anyone paid to carry a government gun. That law declares itself superior to any contradictory state or federal statute.
As posted a few minutes ago by @clcustom1911, shall is a requirement, shall not is a prohibition. Pulling some novel judicial theory out of your arse to argue the exact opposite has zero validity. It is simply lying. Oh we know the celebrations and high fives they share each time they manage to pry one more brick out of that foundation. That doesn't make them clever, just dishonest.
Well, allow me to rephrase that? Does the first Amendment give someone sitting in their parents basement more power to disseminate ideas than any newspaper, radio station or TV network did in 1970?
Or a single CEO to define the “community Standards”’of a communications media that is used by 100 million people?
It apparently does. So by your analogy... it is a reasonable that an average citizen of sufficient means could have a nuke.
Or one could recognize that laws that cover one Civil right should be applied with the same standard across other civil rights. Equal application of the law.
If modern weapons are not what the framers had in mind, nor are modern communications.
A more logical solution is that one can restrict private ownership of nukes the same way that one restricts yelling “fire” in a theater. By prosecuting the person who yells, not by banning the word fire or banning movie theaters. And by bringing up apples/oranges comparison, you offer an unreasonable question to something that can be addressed without restricting the rights of the many.
And to expand on that... it is legal to own various highly-destructive devices. In fact, that is exactly what they are called in statute. So owning an M110 203mm Long Tom cannon AND shooting it with live ammunition, is totally legal. It merely requires a bit more paperwork and a tax stamp. And the means to own one.
Cheers, Sirhr
Does the government have nuclear weapons?
This is the kind of thread that I enjoy reading and very much appreciate.
Carry on!
Carry on!
Gives me the warm fuzzies.
So pewpewfever, I’m kinda curious.. your a lawyer in Texas.. what are your thoughts on that couple that was murdered by Houston cops in their own house after cops executed a no knock warrant based on falsified info from at least one hpd officer?
SCIII Z3L here...good to see some others...
Yet another example of why cant understand normal thinking types should not be allowed to make important decisions of any type. Let alone voting.
Like a slow shot of Jim Beam upon returning home on a cold winter evening and your hands are numb from working and riding all day. Or the smell of a Coleman dual-fuel lantern being fired up after being mothballed in the tool room for a while.
Similar threads
