Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
Geezesss Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2019
Posts: 358
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


All of the gun advocates' best arguments go to hell if the not just by ACLU values but by the NRA's, too.

Are you not fighting against more BIG government, and anti freedom, unconstitutional laws all just the same ?
Oh. well. except for the BIG CORPORATE gun manufacturers lobby, that owns the NRA propaganda . So that goes.

BUT :

Harsh new anti-protest laws restrict freedom of speech, advocates say ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...environment/.../environmentalists-say-new-pipeline-...

Aug 22, 2018 - This story is in partnership with InsideClimate News, a nonprofit, independent news outlet that covers climate, energy and the environment.

They would punished environmental protesters with up to 18 months in prison .... This law enables officials to prohibit protests of more than 20 people on public ...

THE WP is a bad link as you, must pay to play.
So here: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/anti-protest-bills-around-country

If A, your rights are being threatened by any gun regulation, then B. mine are, too, my patriotic, freedom first in America brothern.

Or we are we all ruled by BIG CORPORATE LOBBIES and the damned too big government, too ? (the oil lobby and NRA are the same swamp....
 K Street (Washington, D.C.) -
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_(Washington,_D.C.)
... thing.

If me and my my non-violent protests are first, if they take away my rights, then how long before they take your guns because once I've been eliminated can't protest for you, and can't speak for your rights (like was once done with all of them politically LIBERAL, and capitalist, Jews, in Germany ) you might be well be threated, like any black is, by the cops, and die for showing your guns. So it goes.

All we saying about your 2nd, is to give life a change and then when was last gun safety meeting of your "well organized militia" that you attended ?

Would you let anyone drive without a test for that license ? Then as the Constitution suggests, being well organized is an important point.

But in reality , how well organized is the NRA, with it's leadership issues ? More importantly, what should it's (usually fiscal conservatives membership ) think of it real K Street (SWAMP) reality ?

But these anti-protest laws are different.
What good are all of your guns if your right to protest with them is illegal, on the face it, and it results in 18 months in jail, at the least, and more for threatening the authority's with your deadly firearms ?

If protesting is a crime why not arrest those protesting Trump's "swamp " at his rallies ? Think it over, it is a logical result.
You are not a Jew, so not at the front of the opposition, but are your really an Aryan ( made uo moving target, right) ?

Are they, the too big government and their corporate bosses coming to take my away my rights to protest ? So what is next, your guns ? They own you. You do not own them.

So NOW, is the 1st any less important than your beloved 2nd ?

What good are all of your guns, really, if not to protect all of OUR Americans' 1st Amendment's rights ?


 

Last edited by Geezesss, 6/15/2019, 4:09 am
6/15/2019, 2:57 am Link to this post PM Geezesss Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


First off you are willing to 'Interpret' the amendments, not 'Read Them' so I have no issue with your loss on the first if you adjust the remaining.

BTW, "Peaceful Assembly" or protest has nothing to do with destroying property, screaming at others, threatening others or making a absolute ass of one's self in protest, THAT is criminal action.
6/15/2019, 2:59 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1346
Karma: 10 (+13/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re:


Making an ass of yourself is protected by the First Amendment.
6/15/2019, 3:58 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
Geezesss Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2019
Posts: 358
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
what


Judgey aren't you ?

But you do have a point about these fascist laws ( Remember “Fascism should more appropriate be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." and how people say their guns are to protect them from government, which is what ? )
... will be test by the SCOTUS.

Right now, it is about if it is the time which rights are being given away.
6/15/2019, 4:46 pm Link to this post PM Geezesss Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


Quoted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NOTHING on separating Church and State, NOTHING as to banning nor allowing poor manners in actions of free speech HOWEVER the caveat is Peaceably assembled. Miss that point?
6/15/2019, 6:24 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Geezesss Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2019
Posts: 358
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Okay.


 So it is like your "well organized militia" ?





6/16/2019, 6:39 pm Link to this post PM Geezesss Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


And THAT base example Has/Had been defined as EVERY Able Body Male and Female citizen by none other than Jefferson and Madison.
6/16/2019, 7:53 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Geezesss Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2019
Posts: 358
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Which side re you on, boys ?


... and you call that well organized !!!
Why can't you see just how ridiculous you and your crazy RW PC nonsense are ?

You are so easy to dismiss.
6/17/2019, 4:52 am Link to this post PM Geezesss Blog
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2548
Karma: 29 (+34/-5)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

Quoted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NOTHING on separating Church and State, NOTHING as to banning nor allowing poor manners in actions of free speech HOWEVER the caveat is Peaceably assembled. Miss that point?



The Supreme Court ruled on that in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education)

quote:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.



quote:

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), The Court concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." In a series of cases in the first decade of the 2000s—Van Orden v. Perry (2005), McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), and Salazar v. Buono (2010)—the Court considered the issue of religious monuments on federal lands without reaching a majority reasoning on the subject.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion
6/19/2019, 1:01 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Okay, 2nd Amendments rights, no questions asked, but what of my 1st ? Which side re you on, boys ?


Then explain the current relinquishment of these principles with Muslim beliefs and doctrines.
6/19/2019, 2:19 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)