Turning Away Immigrants Is Neither Unconstitutional Nor Immoral
Rolling Stone On Assault Weapons Ban
No gun confiscation scheme is a national model for anything but civil war. That Rolling Stone doesn’t get that speaks volumes, not of the worth of that periodical, which we all knew anyway, but of the cluelessness of the progressive mind. That’s the most troubling aspect of this commentary. We can only pray that they realize the carnage that would ensue under their schema. If they do and desire this anyway, then there is a cold wind blowing as a harbinger of a dark storm.
Wendy Davis On Texas Open Carry: “I’m A Liar And Everyone Knows It”
5 comments:
One small turd in the punch bowl known as Friedman v Highland Park.
It is possible to learn from your adversary's playbook and use it against them. Notice how quickly the other NFL teams added another linebacker to certain plays after seeing the Miami Dolphins' use of the "nickel back" play in certain scenario's.
I'm specifically referring to the left's use of "venue shopping" to find a court environment more favorable to the outcome they wish to achieve. SCOTUS has taken upon itself to not only be the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, but also to resolve disagreements posed by cases from the various District Courts. So what would be needed to force their hand is another case, or several cases, from other districts that rule that AR15 style weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.
Then SCOTUS would be forced by their own policies to grant cert and resolve the disagreement. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing for either side is another story.
Thanks for posting these....all very well worth the time spent reading.
A comment to HPS' take on the Rolling Stone piece:
robertsgunshop • 8 hours ago
A gun owner isn't home when the team shows up. A family member is killed by the team. The gun owner goes to the nearest politicians house at 0300, sets it on fire and shoots everyone that runs out. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They don't consider the ramifications of unintended consequences.
"After 1808, deciding who was eligible for immigration into the United States was the exclusive province of the central government. Congress has unilateral authority to decide who it is “proper to admit” to the United States, and there are no limitations on that authority."
This is not exactly correct. Article I. of the Constitution provides, in section 9, that, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Article IV. provides, in section 2, that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." This has always been understood to include free movement between states under the commerce clauses.
Combined with the authority of Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, this means that states cannot completely bar persons who qualify for U.S. citizenship from entering and residing within any state. But this does not grant Congress any power at all to force states to accept aliens. If a particular alien wishes to enter a state, and that state prohibits entry, the alien must sue before the Supreme Court. Congress has no specifically granted Constitutional power in the matter.
Which, according to the Tenth Amendment, means it has no power at all.
All guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment...and if they(the anti's) don't believe it
then it is inevitable that they'll eventually reap the painful results of their witless and willful ignorance.
Every nation that has been disarmed by their home grown domestic tyrants in government have warned Americans to NEVER allow it to happen here. I intend to heed that advice to my dying breath.
Post a Comment