the inability to back up arguments and the calling the opposition the terms they call him is pretty good evidence.
of course he cannot, you have never made any statement that would give cause to a REASONABLE poster to make such a claim
Well that is not what he is talking about. He believes the police should never show up at a person's home and arrest them even if they have committed a crime. Ask him. Lol
I have never seen someone on this board saying cops shouldn't arrest those who have committed substantive crimes. BTW not registering a gun or filling out a form is not a substantive crime
Ask him. You have no clue what you are talking about. He is an extreme libertarian. You and I are actually on the same side. Lol
we are not on the same side. I oppose all federal gun control. I oppose any law that only harasses honest gun owners.
Virginia, for example, targeted free blacks in 1806. That required "free negro or mulatto"to obtain licenses before keeping "any fire-lock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead"
What the response in question demonstrates is a totalitarian mindset, as the united states constitution was intended for the purpose of restricting the authority of the united states federal government. Claiming that it is overrated is no different than stating the right to privacy, trial, or legal council is overrated. Such thinking is along the lines that government should be authorized to deprive the public of its right to life without even needing to justify the decision and action.
A totalitarian mindset, huh? That's rich. Apparently, you think rights to privacy and trial originate with the US Constitution. What about the 13 colonies, were they totalitarian governments? Did their people have no right to privacy, no right to trial? The right to trial is as old as law itself. The right to trial by jury was recognized in the earliest of Roman law and throughout the history of the Common law. Do you think the authors of the Magna Carta would have insisted that anyone accused by the Crown would be tried by a jury of his piers (as opposed to by the King's court), and that that jury has the authority to judge both the facts and the law, if they and the letter's recipient didn't presuppose a right to trial? Whatever happened to the right of juries to judge the law itself? With the supremacy clause and final jurisdiction(original jurisdiction when it comes to states), the US Constitution arrogates to the US government final say in all disputes between the US government and another party, including all matters of constitutionality. Are you surprised that federal courts tend to rule in favor of the federal government? We established just earlier that congress and federal courts explicitly affirm that they will violate a persons constitutional rights if they find a 'compelling government interest'. I don't see many people even batting an eye over that, but it amounts to a government informing its subjects as to the circumstances under which it will violate any and all of 'their' mandates to it. A totalitarian government is one that can do whatever it wants, right?
