Challenge to Maryland AWB Submitted to SCOTUS

[jkelly1229]

It take 4 judges to accept a case. You can spout BS in public but court filing must be true and accurate. The trump campaign lawyers never made claims anywhere close to what trump did when they filed with courts.

The changes of election procedures by secretary’s of state in various states was illegal but 95% of what trump claimed had no evidence.

You are correct. As fishy as it was not passing a sniff test doesn't equate to court evidence. And the individual state problems like shutting out repubs from voting sites should've been taken up in state court not federal. If people have beef with that they need to get mad at individual states

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Yeah...Just because I prefer to sue instead of burning someone's house down doesn't mean I am not willing to take action.

 

[jkelly1229]

Yep, if they keep poking the Eagle, they're gonna lose an eye.
Article V is one basis for the article of faith "never say never".

Imagine a 28th Amendment that monolithically replaces the 2nd Amendment with:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms​

shall not be infringed by the United States or by any State.​

Just throw that "militia" crap out the window,
and all the Donk wormtongue arguments about it not applying to individuals along with it.

Incorporate it explicitly against the states
(and thus all lesser jurisdictions which derive their powers from their state).
Give the gun-grabbers nothing to hang their hat on.

Without larding the text up with " or Tribe",
they'll be reduced to trolling Indian tribes into disarming themselves.
A receptive audience? You decide.

Never ever ever ever would happen. We will never see an amendment in our life time more than likely.

75% of the states have to ratify an amendment to the constitution.

There's just no way anything is going to be that universally accepted as a right that isn't accepted now.

Some of the stuff that people think of as an amendment to the BOR shouldn't be there now. Making slavery illegal... prohibition.... repealing prohibition womens voting.

Some of this is feel good bullshit of the time. But we are so divided right now unless china were to nuke 5 major cities including 3 that the red states care about. There won't be unity for a while here.

 

[firestorm]

Because there's like a Federal law against a state circulating a Request for Comments on a specific proposed agenda for a Constitutional Convention.


At least now when people ask the rhetorical question
"how come conservatives never fight like Donks do?",
I know what thread to point them at for an object lesson.

Ok, so please enlighten me as to how we would get a good result from a convention that is not bound by either the current constitution or federal law? Once it is convened whatever agenda the states set beforehand can be thrown out by simple vote of convention members. They set their own agenda, their own rules, and whatever they come up with shortcuts the system if they say it does.

All you have said so far is "We have more red states than blue, we would get a great amendment!" Ignoring the reality of the situation. Read into it a little more, this has never been done after the original convention and there is no telling what sort of crazy crap we would wind up with from it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Whenever I see a quote where there is a "..." between words, I am reminded of the hatchet job media did on Trump's statement on Charlotte. They too, cut together two VERY different statements. Perhaps you should read the real transcript(or watch) of what Healey said. I bet there are quite a few statements and points made in between the two statements Fox put on the screen.

I'm no fan of Healy but lying is not needed to expose her. Her actions and policies are those of a political creature who does anything to get to the federal level. She doesn't want to stay in MA: the armpit of America. She's made those grand pronouncements in 2015 so Hillary would pick her for her cabinet. This is why nobody in her office ever bothered to explain what that announcement meant. To date, there were no prosecutions based on her "clarification of AWB". She wants to sound good enough to get attention in Washington and at the same time have no "skeletons" in her closet that could trip her up. If she ever starts prosecuting based on her "clarification", it will give FPC/GOAL/GOA enough to take the case to the supreme court where it will lose and Healy can kiss her national political career goodbye. Healy is not dumb, nor is she clueless about where MA sands on the grand scheme in the US.
I'd rather have a politician like Healy than a politician who actually believes in what she says(think Warren).

The statement. meant she supported the burning, looting, and violence . Enough said.

 

[babygorilla]

Yeah...Just because I prefer to sue instead of burning someone's house down doesn't mean I am not willing to take action.

But HAVE you sued? Some here have. Maybe even me.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

But HAVE you sued? Some here have. Maybe even me.

Maybe even me.

 

[babygorilla]

Maybe even me.

Good, at least you are willing to put your reputation on the line. BUT, push comes to shove, you must also be willing and able to sacrifice more. As my quote stated, government MUST be afraid of the people, not vice versa, and we need to be willing to use all 4 boxes.....

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Good, at least you are willing to put your reputation on the line. BUT, push comes to shove, you must also be willing and able to sacrifice more. As my quote stated, government MUST be afraid of the people, not vice versa, and we need to be willing to use all 4 boxes.....

I hear you but for me, burning down the house and hanging family members as some have suggested here, is a bridge too far. I cannot support that!

 

[xtry51]

I hear you but for me, burning down the house and hanging family members as some have suggested here, is a bridge too far. I cannot support that!

And that is how tyrants gain power. People who aren't prepared to raise violence to a level equal to the state.

 

[Dadstoys]

Yes or No is the answer I'm looking for, not avoidance to answer.

Which agency would that get sent to?
Asking for a friend.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Which agency would that get sent to?
Asking for a friend.

Thank god there is at least one person here with a brain!

 

[xtry51]

Fearmongering about hypotheticals is insane. If you're afraid to talk about fictitious possibilities then you are already a slave of the state and have lost.

 

[milktree]

Some of the stuff that people think of as an amendment to the BOR shouldn't be there now. Making slavery illegal... prohibition.... repealing prohibition womens voting.

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded bits? It looks like you’re saying those bits shouldn’t be in the constitution. But I can’t imagine anyone on this site who isn’t a troll would be so anti-freedom; so I’m assuming I’m misreading.

 

[jkelly1229]

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded bits? It looks like you’re saying those bits shouldn’t be in the constitution. But I can’t imagine anyone on this site who isn’t a troll would be so anti-freedom; so I’m assuming I’m misreading.

Its already in the constitution. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

The slavery part.

The constitution/ bor is a list of god given rights that no government or anything short of a diety can take away.

They cover slavery in the preamble. So if i had to guess why they passed an amendmant it was some pork laden feel good bullshit along the lines of what we do today.

And banning alcohol isnt an inalienable right.

 

[babygorilla]

I hear you but for me, burning down the house and hanging family members as some have suggested here, is a bridge too far. I cannot support that!

Never? Not even if they are tyrannical?

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Never? Not even if they are tyrannical?

No. I will never kill the wives and children of evil men. I would kill Putin if he came to take my house but I would not touch his daughter. I am a student of history: when atrocities of Nazis became apparent, US and Russia took two different paths. One country went on to destroy the evil men and helped innocent women and children rebuild their lives. The other raped and murdered every German woman from the ages 5 to 95. As a percentage of the German population in 1945, this was worse than Nanjing. Who do you think Germans hate more?

 

[babygorilla]

No. I will never kill the wives and children of evil men. I would kill Putin if he came to take my house but I would not touch his daughter. I am a student of history: when atrocities of Nazis became apparent, US and Russia took two different paths. One country went on to destroy the evil men and helped innocent women and children rebuild their lives. The other raped and murdered every German woman from the ages 5 to 95. As a percentage of the German population in 1945, this was worse than Nanjing. Who do you think Germans hate more?

Well, I hope you like box cars.

There's a reason the tree must be watered with the blood of patriots too.

 

[SFC13557]

Roberts isn’t a very good justice. Roberts isn’t the boogeyman of the election, trump lost. The sooner people accept trump was a moron and blew the election to a corpse, the better. It was trump who shut the economy down, gave fauci a huge role and said stupid things which turned off swing voters.

Yes Trump lost but the vote count was only the latest chapter in the Coup against a sitting President. Lamestream Media conspired with Swamp creatures in the State Dept, DOJ, FBI, Clintonista's, etc. False claims of Russian collusion, False impeachments, lying Dem Pols and the Wuhan flu all contributed to the public's opinion on Trump. I hope John Durham has security. Imagine if Hunter's laptop was made public before the election? His former girl friends are testifying before a grand jury, not good for the Biden crime family.

 

[AHM]

Never ever ever ever would happen. We will never see an amendment in our life time more than likely.

75% of the states have to ratify an amendment to the constitution.

Yes, the trend of history is totally against us.
We'll never get 38 states to vote in our favor.

Ok, so please enlighten me as to how we would get a good result from a convention that is not bound by either the current constitution or federal law? ...

(Because the constitution and federal law
have been working out so great for us lately).

All you have said so far is "We have more red states than blue, we would get a great amendment!" Ignoring the reality of the situation. Read into it a little more, this has never been done after the original convention and there is no telling what sort of crazy crap we would wind up with from it.

And it's just inevitable that crazy crap will be ratified like clockwork.
Why, I hear that the Corwin Amendment is due to pass any day now.

 

[jkelly1229]

Yes, the trend of history is totally against us.
We'll never get 38 states to vote in our favor.

(Because the constitution and federal law
have been working out so great for us lately).


And it's just inevitable that crazy crap will be ratified like clockwork.
Why, I hear that the Corwin Amendment is due to pass any day now.

Right to carry bills are pushes with much debate usually.

It would be 2/3s house and senate then 3/4 of each state

 

[AHM]

Right to carry bills are pushes with much debate usually.

Debate that is 98% bedwetters whinging that
the streets will run ankle-deep with the blood of innocent victims.
Like clockwork; because the gun-grabbers always follow the same script.

Of course that never happens.

So the debate is going to consist of trotting out the same litany of things that Just Don't Happen
which everyone in free states already knows from personal experience doesn't happen.

 

[firestorm]

Yes, the trend of history is totally against us.
We'll never get 38 states to vote in our favor.

(Because the constitution and federal law
have been working out so great for us lately).


And it's just inevitable that crazy crap will be ratified like clockwork.
Why, I hear that the Corwin Amendment is due to pass any day now.

You really seem to love missing the point on purpose. The states don't vote in this case. If you were talking an amendment done the normal way you would have a good chance of the states ratifying if you somehow got supermajorities in house and senate to put it to them (Not likely).

The states each send a delegation to the convention, once there the rules are straight out the window and a majority vote of delegates can make any rule they want. Look at the laws we currently have in deep red states and how the establishment views the second amendment there. Those are the people who will be making the new amendments.

Is it likely we get the second deleted entirely and nothing in it's place? Of course not, but who knows what sort of things we get when 50% +1 of the delegates could make a rule that it only takes a vote of 50% +1 to ratify a new amendment and then they go on a spree?

When we had the senate, and house, and white house why did none of the pro gun bills pass? Why would this be any different? You will get back scratching and those red state delegates you are counting on will sell us down the river for a win on whatever their pet issue is. They rewrite the second to not protect us at all in exchange for some immigration amendment that the dems will ignore anyway, or something on abortion, or any other pet issue they can use as a wedge.

It's a dangerous gamble, and while we might come out of it better than we went in with stronger protections for guns and a much more well written amendment, we are just as likely to come out worse.

 

[jkelly1229]

Debate that is 98% bedwetters whinging that
the streets will run ankle-deep with the blood of innocent victims.
Like clockwork; because the gun-grabbers always follow the same script.

Of course that never happens.

So the debate is going to consist of trotting out the same litany of things that Just Don't Happen
which everyone in free states already knows from personal experience doesn't happen.

Idc if it's 99% Harvard educated doctors lol

The fact is we won't get an amendmant

We're better off hoping scotus removes all restrictions via decision or cw2 kicks off and the new constitution has better wording. Those are higher probabilities than a national an amendmant updating 2a

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

Well, I hope you like box cars.

There's a reason the tree must be watered with the blood of patriots too.

I guess you didn't read my response to the end...

 

[AHM]

The fact is we won't get an amendmant

Without vision the people perish.

 

[AHM]

The states each send a delegation to the convention, once there the rules are straight out the window and a majority vote of delegates can make any rule they want. Look at the laws we currently have in deep red states and how the establishment views the second amendment there. Those are the people who will be making the new amendments.

No, those are the people who will be proposing the text of new amendments,
whose ratification they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;​

... 50% +1 of the delegates could make a rule that it only takes a vote of 50% +1 to ratify a new amendment ...

 

[firestorm]

No, those are the people who will be proposing the text of new amendments,
whose ratification they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;​

Maybe read into it some, that is absolutely how it works. The convention is not bound by the rules you think it is bound by.

Edit: First article https://www.cbpp.org/research/state...al-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

 

[AHM]

Maybe read into it some, that is absolutely how it works. The convention is not bound by the rules you think it is bound by.

Edit: First article https://www.cbpp.org/research/state...al-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

Bedwetting FUD from a Soros-funded "think tank".

---

The ratification process is part of the US Constitution.

A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments
to be voted on outside of the Convention.

It has as much authority to directly change the Constitution,
including the ratification process,
as does Major League Baseball.

 

[firestorm]

Bedwetting FUD from a Soros-funded "think tank".

---

The ratification process is part of the US Constitution.

A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments
to be voted on outside of the Convention.

It has as much authority to directly change the Constitution,
including the ratification process,
as does Major League Baseball.

Believe what you like, but it's a gamble with little possible upside and that is not the only article with the same opinion.