I found this in a blog . . .

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by GoesBang, Sep 21, 2014.

  1. GoesBang

    GoesBang Supporting Member

    "The rights of the individuals are restricted ONLY to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED by the citizenship to the agencies of government." -- City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
    According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to :
    ► Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966);
    ► Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939);
    ► Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966);
    ► Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971);
    ► Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968).

    As these things are unconstitutional for one right, they are equally unconstitutional for any enumerated right.
  2. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Sure. But the government won't accept that argument until forced to, and the left won't accept it at all, and half of the right won't understand it.:(

  3. That's because half of the right, and I'm defining 'the right' as the Republican party, are lefties in disguise and the other half are more worried about getting re-elected than they are about standing up to the left.
  4. MachoMelvin

    MachoMelvin Well-Known Member

    We ALL know the eventual outcome, it is just a matter of when & where?
    REPENT NOW, the END is NIGH!!!
  5. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    Mel, I guess you mean Repent AND Stand & Fight...
  6. wganz

    wganz Supporting Member

    The country club Republicans only want us flyover land conservatives at their parties at two times. Driving the Sysco truck to deliver the food and afterwards to drive the garbage truck to empty the dumpster when they're done. Otherwise, they want us out of sight and mind until they need us to go vote for the candidate that they deemed it is their turn to run.

    If they run Krispy Kreme Christie for Prez, I'm voting 3rd party.
  7. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    I'm a union member, but I long ago gave up on national demoNIcrats.
    I'll vote for a local politician from that party (maybe) but nationally, it's too dangerous. But so are many repubiX.
  8. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    No.... The GOP ain't much better.... But 100 times out of a 100, I'll vote for the guy who at least provides lip service to my important issues, than the guy who diametrically opposes em!......
  9. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    Voting 3rd party is just giving a vote to the opposition. The electoral college is only a 2 party system. A 3rd party will never win the required 270 electoral votes to be prez.
  10. colthrash

    colthrash Member

    disband the electoral college. modern technology could easily count the popular vote... then candidates would have to come to the PEOPLE to get their vote.
  11. wganz

    wganz Supporting Member

    Check out the Connecticut compromise as to why a direct vote would concentrate the power to select the next POTUS to NY, Chicago, and California.
  12. MachoMelvin

    MachoMelvin Well-Known Member

  13. Unfortunately the RNC is DNC-lite. We'll still end up as socialist it'll just take a bit longer to get there.
  14. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Possibly.......... But like I iterated to earlier, I'd rather die from eating carcinogen loaded steaks, than being shot in the head.... You're dead either way, but ones a lot quicker than the other.
  15. Certainly would be a better country if the government(fed, state, local) followed the laws that allow it to exist.

    I wonder at what point a government is no longer legal? Guess we each get decide that for ourselves.
  16. Or if they'd actually uphold the oath of office they took when sworn in. On the Federal level I believe it includes some silly notion of "upholding the constitution and protecting it from enemies both foreign and domestic". They've been ignoring that, I think intentionally, for years.