CHL Fail

[Forever_frost]

Sorry I missed responding on this. Sean, I meant the Puckle Gun.

[mustang_revival]

"A 47- year-old Clarkston woman in the parking lot witnessed one of the store’s loss prevention officers trying to stop a shoplifting suspect getting into a dark colored SUV. The customer — identified as a concealed pistol license holder — reportedly fired shots at the dark-colored SUV as it sped out of the lot.

It’s unknown how many rounds were fired from her 9mm handgun, but police believe she hit and flattened one of the vehicle’s rear tires as it sped off in the direction of Brown Road."

While reckless and illegal, I can't help but think these guys will think twice before stealing again.

[mustang_revival]

Good thing the shoplifter didn't run over a 4 year old in the process of fleeing.

Or shit on the ground and have an elderly man slip and break a hip.

It does raise questions.

[Tremor14]

and before anyone says anything about detroit. Auburn Hills is actually a really nice part of town. That is where the Pistons play.

[blownaltered]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...m_hp_ref=crime

Just read the article. The woman is a dip shit. She is damn lucky she didn't hit an innocent person. You don't shoot at somebody for lifting shit from a home depot. They should take her chl away.

[Tremor14]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bystander-shoots-home-depot-shoplifter-detroit_56154391e4b021e856d3128e?utm_hp_ref=crime

[Gasser64]

Not surprising. Congrats on being part of the problem.

[juiceweezl]

Your post does somewhat prove a bit of my point...BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...They are not somehow all powerful, they are only men. Mere, mortal, flawed, lowly, men.

[Gasser64]

Your post does somewhat prove a bit of my point. If it is indeed some kind of lifelong study (and I don't believe that was the founders' intention) then the way its treated, by many people, isn't always going to be the "intended usage". How many politicians, and members of the courts, have devoted their lives to this lifelong study? I can't be sure, but while many of them are lawyers, I'm going to go with 'not many'.

As for circumventing, yes they still are morons. How does the old saying go? A clever man will always find a way out of a situation, that a wise man would never have gotten into to begin with. Being calculating doesn't make you what I would call smart, and it certainly doesn't make you wise. They can calculate themselves right into a noose, and many of them have. It actually happens with some degree of regularity.

Lastly, who was that president who said something like "Yes the supreme court has ruled against it. Now let us see them enforce it". Some 1800's guy, iirc. I'm not saying I disagree with you, that these things do happen. And happen all the time. But we don't have to say its ok, or that there's nothing we can do, or that its somehow supposed to be that way.

Long story short, I don't take your jaded view. Maybe I'm some kind of idealist, but I still believe in it, and all it takes is good people standing up, to swat those evil POS's back down. Hopefully into death, but that's just wishful thinking. At least into ruin. The peasants can revolt, revolutions happen, and we have a shit ton more ability to affect change than we've ever had at any point in history. They are not somehow all powerful, they are only men. Mere, mortal, flawed, lowly, men.

[Sean88gt]

Again I must respectfully disagree. When I read it, there doesn't really seem to be much room for "interpretation". Its more like "thems the rules". Yes its broad, yes its general. I really believe this is very intentional, so that its not easily circumvented. We can get into whether or not its still circumvented, some other time. I'm talking about how it was meant to be, and how many politicians and judges still treat it. They're not all bad.

Terms like "broad" and "general" lead to ambiguity that has to be interpreted. Your statement is void in the fact that the court system 1. exists, and 2. has stayed really busy for over 2 centuries interpreting "them rules". And I'm telling you, it has been easily circumvented.

I've posted this before, but you need to go read Marbury v. Madison. Prior to that decision, the role of the court was extremely reigned in. Jefferson defeated Adams in the presidential election, prior to leaving the White House, Adams appointed a ton of JP's, because the rule of the day was that an appointment carried with it a 5 year term, regardless of the presidential handoff. Adams and Jefferson weren't fond of each other, so Adams placed a group that followed his federalist principles, including John Marshall, arguably the most powerful man in the history of the US (and perhaps the world). Marshall was one of the view to accept his office prior to Jefferson being sworn in. Madison was appointed the Secretary of State under Jefferson, and vacated the appointments of the JP's that had not taken their offices. As a result, Marbury (and the rest) filed suit.

The end result was a case where Jefferson/Madison "won", because they weren't forced by a writ of mandamus to give the office(s) to the respective JP's. But what Marshall did was essentially say "you're correct, the Supreme Court can't compel you to install JPs/other positions, but what the Supreme Court can do is x, y, z, everything else."

In one opinion, one man changed the direction of the court and laid out a path for the 3rd branch to have ultimate authority. There were other seminal cases that have changed the direction.

What most people fail to do, yourself included, is understand just how contentious the path towards the Constitution was. They assume that a group of enlightened scholars got together, created a document to endure the test of time, and then retired to their farms. Those cats fucking hated each other. And not one single one of them could have ever imagined the way this country looks today back then. So to say that we should treat it the way it was intended completely misses the way that it came about and how it was birthed from the failed Articles of Confederation with 2 groups that couldn't stand or tolerate the other side (sound familiar??).

Again, disagree all you like, but you cannot fully understand the Constitution and its relationship with American Jurisprudence until you take a Constitutional Law class (and even then, it's a lifelong study). You need to be able to understand how it works, how to apply it, and how to argue all sides. You're simply saying your argument is THE argument, and that is rarely effective.

Of course they have. Fucking it up has been their greatest desire, because they're morons. Maybe I should have been more clear, but I wasn't debating that. More along the lines of 'how it should be' rather than, what's going down these days.

They aren't morons, they are calculating individuals that desire power and control. Dismissing them as stupid is a pitfall - because again, they have won, are winning, and will continue to win.

Here I do, and don't disagree. I agree that we've lost our way, but I don't agree that its not america 2015. Almost all the people I know would agree with me and most of the people on this site, about the ways that we need to get back to. However, I'm not ignorant to the fact that this is Texas. Go to Washington state, and you'd probably pass out from the sheer overwhelming stupid wafting in the air. That said, we're not some minority. I believe average joe (aka types like us) is in the vast majority. Giving him hope, and getting him to the polls may be another story, but I'm speaking strictly of opinion.

Expand your circle Texas, isn't America. Hell, Texas isn't even Texas anymore. I've traveled this country, and have been to every state, short of Maine and Alaska. Most people live their lives and aren't as caught up in the politics as Texans seem to be - that could be this site, or the groups we run with.

At this point, I realize the system is the system and I just want to profit off of it, because it will not change, it will not retreat, it will not ever be what it was, but it will continue to shift.

[white88]

alot of my threats wouldnt be so idle if naynay was still naynay :/

[Gasser64]

The clear writing of the founders isn't clear at all...It has various types of interpretation, so ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different ways to "hold to the constitution".

Again I must respectfully disagree. When I read it, there doesn't really seem to be much room for "interpretation". Its more like "thems the rules". Yes its broad, yes its general. I really believe this is very intentional, so that its not easily circumvented. We can get into whether or not its still circumvented, some other time. I'm talking about how it was meant to be, and how many politicians and judges still treat it. They're not all bad.

Are you daft? They have gotten their way. For a century. And they continue to do so.

Of course they have. Fucking it up has been their greatest desire, because they're morons. Maybe I should have been more clear, but I wasn't debating that. More along the lines of 'how it should be' rather than, what's going down these days.

Any while the republic concept is fantastic, it has largely been lost and will likely never be attained again. I don't disagree with the "don't like, hit the bricks" thought, but it's just not 2015 'Murica.

Here I do, and don't disagree. I agree that we've lost our way, but I don't agree that its not america 2015. Almost all the people I know would agree with me and most of the people on this site, about the ways that we need to get back to. However, I'm not ignorant to the fact that this is Texas. Go to Washington state, and you'd probably pass out from the sheer overwhelming stupid wafting in the air. That said, we're not some minority. I believe average joe (aka types like us) is in the vast majority. Giving him hope, and getting him to the polls may be another story, but I'm speaking strictly of opinion.

[Tremor14]

Im just here to get the people talking

[The King]

This thread needs more naynay, more kowbell, or both.

[Sean88gt]

Sure, I can back it up:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, forthe Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now, if it's not an enumerated power, it belongs to the states according to the clear writing of the Founders. If it's not an enumerated power, they cannot grant the executive power to create an agency as the executive is the enforcement arm. The judicial lacks oversight on much. I can provide you a list of things they are permitted to hear on if you like.

"General Welfare" is massively broad.

The Commerce Clause is the most pervasive power our government has. Prior to US v. Lopez, the gov't was hammer down on saying that "everything is commerce". The SCOTUS hit the brakes on that case, but the law (Gun-Free School Zones Act) was rewritten to regulate the possession of guns because they were a product of commerce, and thus, became regulate-able through the Constitution.

And then you get into the "necessary and proper" clause, which again, creates a term that provides massive deferential authority to the gov't.

The clear writing of the founders isn't clear at all.

As to the bolded part, you're wrong. There is 200+ years of history to say you're wrong. You may not like it, I may not like it, but at the end of the day, they have created and crafted laws, and navigated the Constitution to make new laws, create laws, etc. The states rights argument simply doesn't hold up.

Don't you like being called an "extremist" just because you want them to hold to the constitution? Hold to the letter of the law?

It has various types of interpretation, so ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different ways to "hold to the constitution".

Its my belief, along with many others, that it was intended to be. The libtards are always boo hooing because they can't get their way, cause that pesky constitution is just too broad and general. 'its not worded right!! its not specific enough!! Waaahhh!!'

Are you daft? They have gotten their way. For a century. And they continue to do so. The republicans, frankly, fucking suck at politics. They are caught in a constant battle of rope-a-dope and the "what's on your shirt" gets them every single time.

Which translates to, its not specific enough so that we can circumvent it. For example, the right to bear arms, is the right to bear arms. Don't like it? Go. Fuck. Your. Self. Move somewhere else. We don't give a fuck. This is my interpretation of its "vagueness". In my mind, I keep going back to "Its a republic, not a 'democracy'. If you don't like the rules of the republic, then this republic may not be the place for you. No one is keeping you here, we wouldn't do that. Its not our way. But if you want to stay, thems the rules right there in print. FYI none of this is directed at you, this is just the shit that goes through my head when libs start talking about some of this stuff.

We have the right to bear arms. Felons don't, and I'm cool with that. Some types have been regulated, and while I think that sucks, it falls under the necessary and proper provision, because of that pesky general welfare...

Any while the republic concept is fantastic, it has largely been lost and will likely never be attained again. I don't disagree with the "don't like, hit the bricks" thought, but it's just not 2015 'Murica.

I'd also like to point out that our founders knew about full auto weapons and didn't have an issue with them when they wrote the second.

The Belton Flintlock? Not really a full on machine gun. But again, America in 2015 is not America in 1776. We are fucking dumb compared to that time frame. There was a seemingly a desire for intelligence and feeding of the brain (as a whole), where now, the desire is to be a fucking brain-stem, because stupidity is cool.