Security Propaganda

You refused to answer the question. It is a question. I will ask it again. Please keep in mind the officers punished for the cries of "revolution" from Democrats because of "racism".

Does Pelosi's office mean more to you than everyday working Americans?

I'm sensing some bias here. Do you condemn the BLM riots, and support all officers that had to protect their cities and spray tear gas, and defend themselves from BLM rioters and killers?

It seems to me that you have your mind made up.

Prove the forum wrong that you aren't a left wing talking piece. lol

 

You don't have to prove it to me. You have to prove it to a majority of Republicans, a substantial number of independents, and a surprising number of Democrats according to the polls. Do you believe they will all forget their suspicions by the next election cycle?

 

Five people died four of them protestors. The one capital police fatality was from what in modern military parlance would be called an IBD. We don't know who that was or his political affiliations. Nor have we tracked down the ******* who planted the pipe bombs the evening before the riot.

 

So are we back to the deep state conspiracies as those involved in the failed coup are somehow being railroaded by the government that tells you lies.

I’ve been reading Obama’s book, A Promised Land. When talking of Sarah Palin and her incoherence, he lamented that her popularity was sign of things to come, the darkness, the weariness, the hostile towards black and brown people that was to overtake the Republican Party.

 

Then explain because I have no idea what point you're trying to make in this case.

 

Again, laughably wrong, but this time on two counts.

BTW, it's called Natural LAW, not Natural Philosophy for a reason.

Again, it is written in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the Law that all our laws are derived from. That goes for what is written in the Preamble of the DOI. The rights expressed in our Founding Documents existed before they were written and would still exist if they weren't written or somehow they magically disappeared.

As for the quotes in the article I cited, they illustrate that Natural Law does exist in this country and our legal system and factor into the adjudication of the law.

I will add that the Heller ruling the OP pointed out demonstrates that our natural right to self defense is not limited to the provision expressed in the 2A regarding the necessity of a well regulated militia and the security of a free state.

I've already demonstrated otherwise. The existence of the rights expressed and enshrined in the DOI, USC and BOR are not beholden to those documents in particular or positive/statutory law in general. Our court system exists, in no small part, to ensure that Positive Law does not violate Natural Law.[/QUOTE]

 

My point was that not only does Natural Law exist, it has existed since Antiquity.

Why do you think the Founders and Framers studied the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero? That was no accident or coincidence.

I have to sign out for the evening, but I can explain further if I haven't already done so in my other posts.

 

again, the law is quite clear. You can not take up arms against the government. Scalia does not contradict this.

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

Does not matter how many times you insist it exists, there is no such thing as natural law. You can not quote what natural laws exist, nor show where they are written. It is a philosophical construct, and nothing more. That is objective reality.

 

In a broader sense, the Second Amendment, to belabor the point.

Implicit in the 2A and the right to bear arms is the natural right to ensure the security of a FREE State via armed insurrection.

As the article you cited pointed out, that has been understood across the political spectrum, and it has been understood since the 2A was written.

 

Armed insurrection is specifically precluded by US law.

 

And yet, after 60 court appearances, they were all thrown out for lack of evidence. Unless you can demonstrate why they should still be heard, there is no evidence of fraud. How many times does that need to be repeated?

You are right about one thing, talking to Rump apologists is the ONLY wall Rump built.

 

Again, laughably wrong. Natural Law has existed for thousands of years, I've already pointed out where it exists and where it is written and that it is a legal construct. I've also pointed out that our natural rights don't depend on positive/statutory law. Those are facts, and your denials don't change that.

 

According to "what poll"?

This is being driven by the Rump minions, no true Republican conservative believes that bs, and according to most polls, more independents voted for Biden than Rump.

As to your last question, there is no amount of evidence that the Rump apologists will accept because they continually reject reality like spoiled brats.

 

That's already been debunked, as well.

We'll have to continue with that exercise tomorrow...

 

Insisting so doesn’t change reality. It’s why you can’t post where these natural laws are written.

 

I’ll be happy to refute your premise tomorrow as well. Meanwhile, armed insurrection remains expressly prohibited via US law.

 

The original discussion was regarding the existence of a wall around the capitol. The justification for this wall was an exigent threat of violence. I have proven that this threat of violence is always present, and protected by the constitution. Do you dispute that? Scalia quite explicitly argues that the purpose of the second amendment is to prevent the suppression of dissonant political views. How could such suppression be prevented if not through threat of violence? Are people with unpopular views supposed to write their grievances on their guns and mail them in?

 

which I refuted by pointing out armed insurrection is precluded by US law.

obviously

no he doesn’t. You are not comprehending what he is saying, and it’s irrelevant anyway as it is dicta, and not the ruling.

If you disagree with a law your only recourse is go to court, or vote in a representative who will change said law. Armed insurrection is expressly forbidden by law.

 

Absolutely not.
They need to be accessible.
They need to be accountable for words and actions.
Not that they need to have lives threatened, but they should not be placed in a fortress.

 

Who has downplayed riots?
Name and statement please.

 

The election process is 50 states, compiled of both D and R. All the way through.
There is no national election. As the nation only votes every 4 yrs, but states vote every year.

 

ImnotOliver said they did not do much damage in Portland. It didn't affect him at all.

 

He is not a Dem.
And you said democrats, plural. More than 1.