[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities Source: [None] URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/ Published: Nov 12, 2014 Author: Andrew Kirell Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 38096 Comments: 99 Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28. #1. To: A K A Stone (#0) Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. Cities can exert no exemption to the requirements of the Constitution. For those who choose to blather about the militia, the militia includes virtually all men between the ages of 17 to 45, and female citizens in the National Guard. The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia. As Madison shows in Federalist 46, the right is not reserved for the purpose of deer hunting but as a defense against an overreaching Federal government. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 10 U.S.C. §311 §311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Madison, Federalist 46, re the Militia Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-12   13:25:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nolu chan (#1) "The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia." Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". Who were "the people"? At the time, they were the rich white men. The ones with someting to lose. The ones who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect their interests. Only "the people" could vote (Article I, Section 2), for example. And back then, those were the rich white men only. Only they had the right to vote, to assemble, petition the government, keep and bear arms, and be free from ubreasonable searches. Now, who was in the militia back then? According to the Militia Act of 1792, only white adult male citizens. Not women. Not black slaves. Not children. Not non-citizens. Therefore, not all persons. Only "the people". The second amendment protected their right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. State constitutions protected the rights of other persons. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-15   11:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: misterwhite (#5) Now, who was in the militia back then? According to the Militia Act of 1792, only white adult male citizens. Not women. Not black slaves. Not children. Not non-citizens. Therefore, not all persons. Only "the people". The second amendment protected their right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. State constitutions protected the rights of other persons. The Militia Act of May 8, 1792 (or Second Militia Act of 1792) Chap. XXXIII.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. (a) SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representitives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. [snip] The Act did not "protect" a right to keep and bear arms. It mandated that the members of the militia possess arms, whether they desired to exercise their right to keep arms or not. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twentyfour cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed. accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service. except, that when called out on company days to exercise only. he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon. and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required. shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. The Second Amendment to the Constitution (1791) predates the Militia Act of May 8, 1792 and expressly reserved to the people their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. People. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d 80, 81. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutinal law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political power. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-15   18:58:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: nolu chan (#12) "(the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)." Yes. "The people". Not "all persons". "Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed." Yeah? What about it? Seems to me it's defining "the people" as "the voters". Which is what I've been saying all along. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   13:15:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: misterwhite (#15) Seems to me it's defining "the people" as "the voters". Seems to me you are really reaching. This means many citizens are not considered part of "the people." FYI, you cited an imaginary Executive Order on LP. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349284&Disp=1#C1 #1. To: Ndcorup (#0) The 1986 law extended amnesty to illegal immigrants, but not to their spouses or children. Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same. (http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive- orders-2014-11) misterwhite posted on 2014-11-19 14:17:26 ET In Reagan's case, the Director of INS announced a policy change. If you desire to fact check, here are links for all Executive Orders issued by Reagan in 1986, 1987, and 1988. Happy hunting for a relevant Reagan Executive Order. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-22   16:14:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: nolu chan (#17) "Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-22   17:25:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#20) Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: I'm not being picky. There was no Executive Order, memorandum or proclamation. Just because someone says something does not make it so. This readily fact-checkable information was echoed all around the internet by numerous people, not just by yourself. Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese wrote a memo and INS District Director Perry Rivkind anounced a policy change. It was an action made within the Executive branch but was not issued by President Reagan. Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." I will assume you have not read the "Reagan" memo/announcement. See this report from 1989 quoting the Meese memorandum. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-01-15/news/8901030372_1_nicaraguan-economy-foreign-policy-sandinistas Analysts Blaming Immigration Wave On Failed Policies January 15, 1989 By DON MELVIN, Staff Writer The Sun Sentinel [...] George Waldroup, deputy director of the Miami INS office, said the statement by INS District Director Perry Rivkind, "was taken out of context back then. What the statement was, was that he would not deport any Nicaraguan until the due process had been finalized under existing statute or regulation. Nicaraguans have been deported by this district. He did say it was against his moral consciousness to do so when you had a government there like it was." In July of 1987, Meese issued a memorandum directing INS to take a series of steps regarding Nicaraguans. "No Nicaraguan who has a well-founded fear of persecution will be deported in the absence of a finding by the Justice Department that the individual has either engaged in serious criminal activity or poses a danger to the national security," the memo read, according to Meissner. "Every qualified Nicaraguan seeking a work authorization will be entitled to one, and all INS officials are directed to encourage and expedite Nicaraguan applications for work authorizations." [snip] http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/ Obama Set to Unilaterally Reshape the Nation’s Immigration System Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….” In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. I assume the public at large has yet to read the Obama Executive Order as it has not yet been published to the public. It should be Executive Order 13862. All Executive Orders must be published in the Federal Register at this one, when it is published, should be available at this link. It is hard to say exactly what Obama is planning to do before the Executive Order is published. There have been indications that the unlawful deportable aliens will be given work permits and social security numbers. We already know that Obama lies about what his actions will do. On Obamacare, the bill had to be passed in order to find out what was in it. Then, the promise and forecast claims evaporated. The American people were Grubered. It is exceedingly difficult to see how Obama is planning to patch an unforeseen result of a recently enacted law -- seeing as how the piece of recently enacted law for Obama does not exist. The Senate legislation (S. 744) frequently cited by Obama was unconstitutional on its face. How much of this does Obama seek to enact by executive fiat? We have to wait to see the Executive Order. The Executive can not raise any funding without congressional authorization, and that must start in the House. The Dem immigration bill in the Senate, S. 744, passed 68-32 and died. It was "blue slipped" and never considered in the House. When, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, a Senate-introduced bill that raises revenue or appropriates money is passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration, the House places a blue slip on the legislation that notes the House's constitutional prerogative and immediately returns it to the Senate without taking further action. This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic is historically to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip. It was an unconstitutional bill originated in the Senate and raising revenue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:@@@S S. 744 Latest Title: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 4/16/2013) Cosponsors (7) Related Bills: H.R.5, H.R.490, H.R.1596, H.R.2270, H.R.2624, H.R.3130, H.R.3344, H.R.3431, H.R.3568, H.R.3914, H.R.4460, H.R.4951, H.R.4961, S.223, S.616, S.891, S.1889, S.2561, S.2781 Latest Major Action: 6/27/2013 Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 32. Record Vote Number: 168. Latest Action: 6/27/2013 Senate ordered measure printed as passed. Senate Reports: 113-40 For any who claim that obama can implement what is in this Bill without Congress, or that such actions do not required appropriation of funds, this is an 1198-page bill littered with appropriations. [46] 9 SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM FUNDS. 10 (a) COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM TRUST 11 FUND.— 12 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in 13 the Treasury a separate account, to be known as the 14 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund 15 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Trust Fund’’), 16 consisting of— 17 (A) amounts transferred from the general 18 fund of the Treasury under paragraph (2)(A); 19 and 20 (B) proceeds from the fees described in 21 paragraph (2)(B). 22 (2) DEPOSITS.— 23 (A) INITIAL FUNDING.—On the later of 24 the date of the enactment of this Act or Octo- 25 ber 1, 2013, $46,300,000,000 shall be trans- [47] 1 ferred from the general fund of the Treasury to 2 the Trust Fund. $46 billion here, and $46 billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. And, of course, U.S. Const., Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1, states, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." I suppose that because the House would not act to generate the 1198 pages, the Senate felt legally justified to do it themselves. They could not wait. It was an emergency. No, I'm serious about the emergency. See page 66, 1 (d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.— 2 (1) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR CONGRES- 3 SIONAL ENFORCEMENT.—In the Senate, amounts 4 appropriated by or deposited in the general fund of 5 the Treasury pursuant to this section are designated 6 as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 7 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the 8 concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 9 2010. 10 (2) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR STATUTORY 11 PAYGO.—Amounts appropriated by or deposited in 12 the general fund of the Treasury pursuant to this 13 section are designated as an emergency requirement 14 under section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 15 Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–139; 2 U.S.C. 16 933(g)). Examples of appropriations littered throughout the 1,198 pages of the bill. Under SEC. 1104. ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING BORDER SECURITY OPERATIONS which begins at page 82, one funds at page 86, 4 (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 5 There is authorized to be appropriated for each of 6 fiscal years 2014 through 2018 such sums as may 7 be necessary to carry out this subsection. Under SEC. 1106. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY which begins at page 92, we find on page 93, 10 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi- 11 tion to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated, 12 there is authorized to be appropriated to U.S. Customs 13 and Border Protection such sums as may be necessary to 14 carry out subsection (a) during fiscal years 2014 through 15 2018. At pages 505-506 we find Section 2541, we find, CHAPTER 3—FUNDING 18 SEC. 2541. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 19 (a) OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP AND NEW AMERI- 20 CANS.—In addition to any amounts otherwise made avail 21 able to the Office, there are authorized to be appropriated 22 to carry out the functions described in section 451(f)(2) 23 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 24 271(f)(2)), as amended by section 2511(b)— 25 (1) $10,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 26 on September 30, 2018; and 506 1 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 2 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. 3 (b) GRANT PROGRAMS.—There are authorized to be 4 appropriated to implement the grant programs authorized 5 under sections 2537 and 2538, and to implement the 6 strategy under section 2539— 7 (1) $100,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 8 on September 30, 2018; and 9 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 10 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   14:40:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: nolu chan (#25) You're off topic. In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:52:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#26) In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:33:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 28.         There are no replies to Comment # 28. End Trace Mode for Comment # 28. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com