Virginia Gun Rights Rally
- Thread starter CiK
- Start date
- Status
3855WIN
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Bitching and bashing is just a matter of perspective.
www.foxnews.com
AOC declares Democrats a 'center-conservative' party: We don't have a 'left party' in this country
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., concluded on Monday that the Democratic Party is a "center or center-conservative" party and how there currently isn't a "left" party in the United States.
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
One of the scariest posts I've seen.Bitching and bashing is just a matter of perspective.
AOC declares Democrats a 'center-conservative' party: We don't have a 'left party' in this country
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., concluded on Monday that the Democratic Party is a "center or center-conservative" party and how there currently isn't a "left" party in the United States.
CiK
Well-known member
Guns aren’t accidentally shooting people all by themselves. Its a person issue, not a gun issue. I think 22,000 people in Richmond Virginia showed that yesterday. They even picked up after themselves.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Loud and loquacious but leerily listened.Bitching and bashing is just a matter of perspective.
AOC declares Democrats a 'center-conservative' party: We don't have a 'left party' in this country
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., concluded on Monday that the Democratic Party is a "center or center-conservative" party and how there currently isn't a "left" party in the United States.
IMO, center moderate ideas are needed to improve security and reduce violence ... but the divisive impractical and oppressive gun control ideas are not the answer(s).
To some, talking politics is “politically incorrect”......especially if we’re not all in agreement! Talking, discussion, even arguments are much better than the events potentially on the horizon. There are many that prefer not to have their firearms forged into plows. There are a few sheep dogs that will make life possible for the sheep! If the sheep dogs can no longer the flock.....all will ultimately suffer the same fate!
The foundation of the debate and the very peaceful march yesterday, was to provide the sheep dogs with the teeth to protect those to timid to defend themselves! memtb
The foundation of the debate and the very peaceful march yesterday, was to provide the sheep dogs with the teeth to protect those to timid to defend themselves! memtb
Schaaf
Well-known member
Why do people continue to trot out the talking point of a sheriff deciding what is and isn’t constitutional? Last I checked, that ole boy doesn’t sit on the bench.
Should we also take Sheriff Arpaio at his word when he says public land is unconstitutional and the feds have no jurisdiction just because he has his belt on a little too tight and a shiny badge on his chest?
Should we also take Sheriff Arpaio at his word when he says public land is unconstitutional and the feds have no jurisdiction just because he has his belt on a little too tight and a shiny badge on his chest?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
"Protect and defend the Constitution" and standing laws, but the oath does not include the term "interpret".
3855WIN
Well-known member
It’s really not that complicated. As an officer, he’s helping to defend the Constitution. The power belongs to the people, not the central government.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
We the people have chosen to have a constitutional form of government where the right to interpret the Constitution is vested in the Supreme Court - not local officials. For the same reason elected school boards can’t cling to “seperate but equal”, county clerks can‘t require heterosexual status for marriage and individual cities like SanFran and Berkeley can’t declare immigration law unconstitutional. If every Tom Dick and Harry holding any office at any level of government gets to develop a set of personal constitutional standards then we no longer are a “nation of laws, not men” - in fact at that point we have no nation, just anarchy.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
You're right, it's not.
The Sheriff is the executive branch. Uphold laws.
The constitution is written by the legislative branch. Make the laws.
But there's the batshit crazy third leg to our government called the Judicial branch.... they ALONE get to decide if a law is actually legal or in this case "constitutional".
If you think the Sheriff can act as judiciary then he might as well start rewriting the constitution himself as you've thrown out the idea of "checks and balances"
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
385Win - you know you’ve really put your foot in it, when you cause neffa3 and I to agree on something
Nailed it. Folks would have a conniption fit the first time a sheriff expanded search and seizure powers because he didn't feel like current case law was constitutional.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
You mean like Mayors interpreting Fed Immi Law?
What's even less complicated is he's simply stumping for votes during a TV op. Elected sheriffs do not have the authority to determine constitutionality of laws. He can direct his deputies to not enforce the law, but by doing so is exposing himself, his staff, and the county to both civil and criminal liability.
Nullification conspiracy is stupid, no matter which side does it.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Well 358 Win did get this thread about 10 posts closer to the 250 mark without too much angst and drama.385Win - you know you’ve really put your foot in it, when you cause neffa3 and I to agree on something
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Only 31 posts to go before I can call somebody a NaziWell 358 Win did get this thread about 10 posts closer to the 250 mark without too much angst and drama.
- Status
