Tionico
- 17 comments
- 0 likes given
- 16 likes received
Bio not provided
@Zenphamy ON "abortiin rights", your point fails at the termination of the right of that not yet born child. HIS life is protected, prior to and independly of any of our documents. It is certainly NOT a "natural right" to terminate the life of anoher without just cause AND due process, neither of which are in place when a woman or anyone else kills her unborn child.
Modern gun contrl began in the SOUth, during Recontstruction post-bellum, and was instituted to disarm freed negro slaves. Many of those laws were town, some county, some even at state level. NONE failed to infringe upon the right to arms guaranteed ALL men as pre-existing our Founding Documents. If a right is given by God, and preexists the document recognising and guaranteeing it, it is a safe thing to say it cannot be restricted (infringed) by government at ANY level, except for cause, and by due process, on an individual basis.
Later modern gun control came in New York City through a corrupt mayor (SUllivan?) who got laws passed to give HIS gang boys the advantage under the law. Since the cops were in HIS back pocket, any of HIS guys could do anything and not be charged. Any NOT his would go to jail for the same things. Convenient, no? And rotten.
Your point on nuclear and naval weapons is a valid one, and needs greater recognition.
I do have to agree with you, as well, that the false logic of "reasonable" arguments and restrictions is just that.. false. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means just that. Not for ANY reason. (there ARE valid reasons to restrict individuals who have proven themselves untrustworthy, a danger to society, and/or themselves, by actual conduct, observed and provable in a court of law. This insanity of government constumed armed thugs coming round and stealing a man's guns because his ten year old kid said something goofy at school is flat wrong, and MUST be stopped. Same with a man being forced to surrender his right to arms because his wife decides to divorce him and files a complaint for a restraining order as a matter of course (the lawyers encourage this sort of slime) when he's made no threat whatever, has moved two states away, and has no intention of coming round and messing with her.... but he still loses his right to arms, no chance to protest. Done deal. THAT is as wrong as the guy who wilfully stalks her to "get even" and assaults her. One is a physical assault, the other a civil assault. The latter should be prohibited.
I, too, disagree wiht the narrow interpretation of "arms", and the word "bear". Arms would have lincuded anything individuals and/or militia could practically make use of in defending against tyranny or invasion. Certainly this would include cannon, even larger pieces than the four pounders destroyed at Concord. Later in the day, the reinforcements fromBoston deployed a pair of field pieces against the Colonials.... had they been able to "bear" them, I've no doubt they would have brought similar fieldpieces into play in their driving off the tyrants. Further, it is also well documented that a number of privately owned and oerated ships were employed against the British, particularly along the New England coast, sinking a few British naval vessels, and destroying others. IF (and I believe it is) part of the purpose of the Second is to preserve the right of individuals and state militia to stand against tyrants, foreign and/or domestic, I would have to believe the right to own and use appropriate ships would be preserved as well. If things go crazy today, can you imagine a small, fast inshore seaboat, crewed by skilled seamen, armed with perhaps AR 10,s, FN AR, M 14, M1 Garand, maybe even a BMG 50, harrying patrol boats of a government gone mad with power, perhaps sinking or commandeering a few of them? I can..... and believe it would be wel within the meaning of the Second Article of Ammendment. If I owned such a vessel, and were in an area where it could stand against runaway government vessels, I'd not hesistate, Second or not. Once tyranny explodes into the mainstream, as it could, anything goes. The single goal at that point will be to remove them from power, and assure they cannot operate again, ever. Hmmm.. that is precisely what the Patriots had as their goal in 1775, isn't it? Nothing spared to drive the tyrannical Brits off these shores, and then wrote the Constitution wiht Ammendments to assure such tyranny cannot return. But oh my, in spite of their care against such an eventuality, it certainly appears unacceptible tyranny is coming upon us. WHY ELSE would "they" be so solid about removing the most common, and effective, means of repelling such a usurpation of power? ANd what would we NOT use, if available, to end such tyranny? Who cares what France, Britain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, or the "sacrosanct" United Nations might think? I certailnly don't. Nor will a few millions of other patriots.
@BrianHeise point wel made.. one minor correction, the tax on the tea was far less than five percent.. it amounted to about a penny the pound, a fraction of one percent. Worse, the tea in question was ancient stuff, foisted upon the colonies by the government-chartered British East INdia Tea Company, essentiialy an arm of the Crown, fiurther, the tax was ONLY on tea destined for yankee tea sellers. Tory tea merchants had their own stocks, fresher, higher quality, and untaxed, at very favourable prices. No wonder that tea was had overside and into the bay... though by that time the main motive was to free the patriot owned three ships holding the tea, and which would not unload until the tax was paid.. thus, the livelihood of the shipowners and crew (bound for shares, not a salary) was in view. The colonies each were founded under direct charter from the Crown, and had self-rule as one of their conditions of existence. Soon enough, the crown usurped full control, against the terms of those charters. SO, the colonies threw off their overlord, formed a new central government with VERY limited powers, retaining self-rule in all others. We see how that works today in that the overarching central government now reigns over every aspect of our individual lives... contrary to our "charter", the COnstitution. Montanans are merely attempting to retain self-rule in one small area in a matter already clearly under the self-determination of each individual. Let us hope the PEOPLE of Montana speak loudly and often to their legislators, who then over-ride the governor's veto, telling him no, even HELL NO, we will NOT allow ourselves to be subject to unconstitutioinal federal control. Perhaps Montana will be the Boston of the 1770's?
How about a new version of this, requiring Montana LEA to refuse to help the FedGov enforce ANY federal level laws conflicting with Montana state law.. such as medical marijuana, their own Firearms Freedom Act, speed laws, EPA regulations conflicting with Montana state law, state stock and wildlife laws, etc. This guy forgets it is the STATES that ceded very limited power to FedGov, retaining all other powers for itself and its people. NOWHERE is the power to limit in any way our right to arms, or to put into our bodies any substance, given to FedGov. Thus, any such laws are non-binding at state level anyway. Seems this is what SCOTUS have decided in the cases cited in this article.
Let us hope the two houses of legislature in Montana over-ride this veto. THAT will send a strong message to their governor. Perhaps he will become a tad wiser in this event.
@Brusckey and all these are right out of Karl Marx' playbook on how to turn a country socialist/communist. One main item is to destroy the family by easy divorce, contraception, abortion, abandonment of marriage (co-habiting being the current euphemism), getting Moms out of the house and into the factory/office, daycare to replace Mum, making sex a casual thing rather then sacred and reserved for marriage, homosexuality, and related ills.
@BushMaster63 the things of which you accuse our political leadaers are misdirected. The ones who have shown "slience, cowardice, and inaction" are US. This is a government OF the people, and BY the people. It is NOT a government by political leaders. If they don't pass the laws WE want, it is OUR responsibility to dump them next election (and no, don't go whining aobut term limies.. WE are the term limiters, not some law) The Supreme COurt pased Roe vs Wade... and we've done nothing to overturn or undo that. WHY? Refer to your three reasons above. That's why. How many "decent christians" voted for Romney, a man who supports abortin in some circumstances. One is either pro life in ALL situatioins, or anti life. Romney was a waffler, a vote-getter. Glad he lost. It would have just been kicking the can down the road eight more years. Now, things are coming to a ehad, and we lazy, silent Yanks are being stirred, at long last, to action.
One seemingly minor, but very significant quibble: you refer to our rights as given us by the COnstitution. This is wrong. The Constitutiion does two things, in the main: puts restrictions and responsibilities on the national government, and identifies certain of our rights, guaranteeing them to us as preexisting and from our Creator. If they are "given by" the Constitution, then they can be taken away. NEVER allow this misconception to stand. It thus puts the Constitution as the source and controller of our rights, the ones God gave us. That document is subordinate to our God. Never forget that. Seems small.. but really that's HUGE.
if he was born here of immigrant parents who were not yet naturalised, he is not a Natural Born Citizen, thus ineligible to stand for the presidency. We are a nation under the rule of laws, and must uphold them as they are written, or change them and then uphold them. If the GOP select a candidate who is not eligible, it WILL be their death knell. Too may have had enough of running roughshod over our Constitution. If the GOP will not be fiathful to that document, they deserve to lose yet AGAIN. I am already furious enough at them for the way they botched this past election. It is the party elites and power players who refused to allow the voice of WE THE PEOPLE to determine who would lead us. Now the kinyun will further mung things up for all of us, and it was totally preventable. Unless Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen, he cannot stand for that office. He IS good, no question, and his voice is badly needed in our land. How about making him the head of the Republican Party? Maybe HE can see a clear course for the future, though he might not be able to have his hand on the helm.
@MarkMatis true enough. I hadn't "caught" that the use was for LSU promotion, thus "commercial". I can take a photo of Queen Decadent as she pours hereself out of her Rolls at kerbside Hollywood, and sell that image to the Irrational Blabbermouth for money. BUT.. and I skate. Its called "f/8 and be there" in the trade. HOWEVER, once I take that image and use it to sell my soap, I MUST get her release.. and fat chance of THAT ever happening. Your assessment IS quite accurate...... its the use that determines the need for the release. I can imagine these PP guys filing a grievance, demanding compensation, but perhaps waiving the compensation demand if LSU decide to remake the advert with the UN-"shopped" image. If they want to use the "shopped" image, then make them pay. A lot..... and file a complaint for unlawful use of their recognisable likelnesses for commercial purposes.
@MarkMatis Being on private property, that is, in the stadium at the time of the event, circumvents the need for model releases for the subjects. Its sort of akin to it bieng legal to "stalk" "stars" in public places... any image snagged on or from a public place needs no release. Same deal with photographing law enforcement in the persuit of their occasional nefarious deeds. They try and arrest folks for videotaping them beating an already noncombative individual on the street or piblic sidewalk, but since they themselves are also in the public place, their complaint is groundless... they merely desire to sheid themselves from the consequences of their unlawful actioins.
depending on WHO created the original image, there may be legal recourse for editing a created work without permission. If LSU staff too the original photo, no recourse, it is theirs. If the Painted Posse somehow is owner of the image, they'd have recourse along these lines. In any case, just one more incident of discrimination against some identifiable group.
Remember, one of Karl Marx' tools for takeover is to divide the target population into factions, on any lines possible, then set those factions against each other until total chaos results. THEN the marxist socialist perverts can come in and "offer the solution" to the "problem" they have created, gain the confidence of the now-splintered population, and take over without firing a shot. One more instance of precisely this battle tactic being emplyed.
seems I recall some guy thinking he'd try and be president.... had as his main schtick that all bills would have to be authorised under the Constitution or he'd veto them. He also figgered he'd set about taking apart a few of the federal alphabet soup agencies... those with no constitutional basis, like EPA, Ed, Ag, DHS, FDA.. the Fed..... When he was done with that, he'd start taking a look at different programmes to see whether THEY had any authority under the Constitution.. like farm subsidies, the DEA, federal welfare, school lunches, Obamatax... if they didn't he'd end them. Oh, almost forgot.. he'd surely end foreign aid payments. BUT.. the media and the party shills running the show (there is only really ONE party, but it has two heads) decided he was unelectable. Too bad. I reallly believe that guy was in OUR corner, having a solid understanding that no government can rule without the consent of the governed. He'd read that on some old piece of paper he came across somewhere... thought it was a good idea.
Hmph..... now, I suppose we'll just have to pick up his banner and slog through making these things happen anyway. Oh well....
@unaffiliated The state "enjoys" collective bargaining for the people who comprise that state no more or less than the negotiators for any other corporation enjoy collective bargaining on behalf of workers, shareholders, suppliers, etc. In both cases, the few negotiate on behalf of, and for the benefit of, many more. In the case of unions, they do the same... except unions enjoy a monopoly of force in that they have exclusive "rights", or power, to supply the labour for the employing entity, whether private, corporate, or government. The "entity" should be able to negotiate with anyone it chooses, but the union, once in power, denies anyone else the right to negotiate with the entity. The Taft Hartley anti-monopoly laws should preclude the unions holding such a monopoly over the available labor forces. Nothng "forces" the union to negotiate with the hiring entity. However, the union forces the entity to negotiate with it, and ONLY it. Lopsided is one word that fits, tyrannical is another. This judge needs to have his head examined, in which process he must be found unfit to hold his office, and debenched. I hope Governor Walker and the People of Wisconsin persue such actions.
@NavyJR @ElderAl Testing has proven bullet holes in the skin of an airliner are minimal problems... certainly far less lethal than hijackers commandeering the craft and flying it into a building, or than people aboard trying to scatter their family jewels. Nearly all who carry concealed are well aware of things like the path of their fired rounds, types of bullet and their performance on impact/penetration, etc. The record of private citizens is far better, in both numbers and percentages, than "trained" LEO. To wit: a recent shootemup in Bollmie's turf wherein the LEO on the scene fired seventeen rounds, six of them hitting the perp, and nine innocent bystanders getting hit with the rest. Bloomie: "only the trained professinals are qualified to handle firearms". An airliner, even at altitude, having its outer skin penetrated by a stray round will easily make it to its destination. The passengers may well have to use the on board oxygen masks, making the trip a tad tedious, but ending well.
TSA should also be put in charge of "security" for people like presidents........ yep, the same cheerful, friendly, efficient, helpful, thorough, diligent, well trained personnel we all have to deal with at the airports should be the ones "riding shotgun" whenever the Prez goes anywhere. Hey, if its good enough for us, it MUST be good enough for our fearless leader, right?
@nancylk I'll take the uscreened aircraft, and since it is unscreened, the handgun that is ALWAYS on my waist will be aboard in case anyone gets funny. If ten percent of the rest of the passengers do likewise, it will be far safer than the TSA screened craft the public is now required to fly. Remember, TSA either failed to check, or missed when they did check, in every instance of note wherein some aircraft was "compromised". The "shoe bomber", the "panty bomber", etc. By the bye, standard boarding screening on 11 September 2001 included metal detectors. TSA have yet to interdict one proven terrorist, and have let many dangerous weaons into passenger cabins in spite of their screening. I ahve seen this with my own eyes.
reminds me of the oldest lie in the universe... "I will ascend, I will be like God". It didn't work out so well for that rebel, did it? It won't for this one either, long term. His day of reckoning will come. And he will realise just WHO that God is whom he attempts to usurp. He, together with his hand-picked minions.
Anyone who has ever bothered to READ our Constitution already knows this. We are "represented" by a tyrant, and I can only hope enough astute people will realise this by November and give HIM his waling papers. Perhaps, once he's gone and the Constitution is restored to its rightful place, he can be brought up on charges. Had any nazi operatives conducted themselves as this kinyun has of late, they'd have been tried and convicted at Nurenburg. And this individual swore an oath to uphold the Constitution? Liar.......