swilow
Bluelight Crew
That justice system? They get interpret the law? No thanks. Just another tyrannical government program that needs to be completely abolished and hung for treason.
Hang that goddamn justice system. Right on.
That justice system? They get interpret the law? No thanks. Just another tyrannical government program that needs to be completely abolished and hung for treason.
So the state decided instead of just reading the constitution which every American should do. We are gonna appoint 9 people within interests of the state, created a justice department, all with paid with stolen money, to interpret the constitution, with the emohasis on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and a consensus came that said putting restrictions on guns is not unconstitutional.
Who even are these people with the tyranny of the state to just completely override the constitution? Do u even understand what they have passed before? Sterilization of ppl with intellectual disabilities. Japanese internment in WW2, separate but equal.
That justice system? They get interpret the law? No thanks. Just another tyrannical government program that needs to be completely abolished and hung for treason.
Supreme Court is actually up there for reasons of why I hate the state
I get the whole anarchy vibe, but why do the words of a bunch of white male slave owners in 1791 trying to crystal ball the future outweigh the judgement of 9 appointed judges from the here and now?
It's so self-selecting.
The constitution provides a way for it to be modified with the times. A referendum. Which is a big part of what I don't like about the suggestion the Supreme Court should essentially reinterpret the law to change its function. I mean I don't think the 2nd amendment provides an absolute right that can't ever be denied in the same way as there are limits on other rights. What I don't like is what seems like some suggesting they interpret the 2nd amendment into being a collective right retroactively which has no legitimacy in historical fact.
And what I don't like about it most of all, is that the constitution provides a way for updating it to reflect changing time, a referendum. And the only reason people are suggesting it be reinterpreted over simply changing the 2nd amendment the legitimate way, is they know that far too many people disagree with it for a referendum to pass. Which means they know that it's undemocratic and can't be changed the legitimate way, and want to find a loophole to do it anyway. It's underhanded and opposed to both democracy and proper interpretation of the law.
I don't think denying felons the right to own weapons is unconstitutional. But trying to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment because you know you can't change it the way the system provides because too many ordinary citizens disagree with you seems very wrong to me.
You took the argument right out of my head. Bravo. I hope theres an absoulete awakening to how tyrannical these pieces of sh*t truly are.
right. the 2nd amendment clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."Then it?s just stupid because the constitution is pretty well written and art tight on how it wanted it?s state to govern it?s ppl.
well, the 2nd amendment enshrines your right to bear arms so you can fight this tyranny. what are you waiting for?I hope theres an absoulete awakening to how tyrannical these pieces of sh*t truly are.
i'm not. my position on the 2nd amendment is routinely misrepresented - and sometimes just plain lied about - in this forum.So tell me, why are you trying to argue that it doesn't protect the right of the people?
i'm not saying - and have never said - that.Which means you think it's OK to ignore the rules altogether and change the meaning illegitimately. Because it's for the greater good.
i'm not saying that.OK, then what I fail to see is how you can honestly argue the 2nd amendment is a collective right of the state.
right. i agree. but that doesn't mean there can't be conditions.The right of the people.
I get the whole anarchy vibe, but why do the words of a bunch of white male slave owners in 1791 trying to crystal ball the future outweigh the judgement of 9 appointed judges from the here and now?
It's so self-selecting.
the decision in the heller case suggests otherwise.
alasdair
the types you don't want entering politics