itsrequired
New Member
I thought the supreme court held that obamacare was constitutional?
Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
I thought the supreme court held that obamacare was constitutional?
itsrequired
New Member
Look another SOMD bully shows up ..... is there a special today ?
actually if you were paying attention - and I know YOU WERE NOT .... you would have noted I quoted Hank / Midnight Retard / Itstuppoodd saying exactly that
you screech and holler and make personal attacks when you have nothing to add to the discussion .........
nobody likes me .....
621
What I said was, "You have demonstrated on this post that you are a coward and can easily be bullied into making a childish decision such as closing this down when you don't enjoy the comments of others, then in a further display of your lack of fortitude, being persuaded to re-open when given pressure to do so."
If you are going to cut and paste my work, please make sure you are capable of cutting and pasting the whole thing.
I love the fact that you call other people names, then when they call you names and disagree with you they are a bully.
PsyOps
Pixelated
It was found to be a tax. Those cute little sneaky liberals; always finding cute little ways to stick it to us. Oh and that 'you will not see a dime of your taxes go up'? He was just joking.
And we know the SCOTUS has been right on every decision they've ever made. Right?
itsrequired
New Member
Justic Roberts is a liberal? Not everyone is going to agree on things and there has to be a body of law that has the final decision. I disagree with obamacare. I think it's unfair to hard working business owners.
SCOTUS may or may not be right on every decision. I may think parts of the constitution are wrong but that is the rule of land. You can't pick and choose what is law or constitutional based soley on what YOU think.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I know you do. And that’s fine. And if the people of Watertown feel safer, yet less free, well that’s just dandy. Disarmed, cops forcing people out of their homes at gunpoint, cops going into homes without a warrant all to catch a ONE criminal; I can’t think of a better way for THE PEOPLE to feel safe; why do we need our liberties as long as we’re kept safe – BY SOMEONE ELSE!
That's all I got. We've decided that we are to depend on the government for everything. We've handed over virtually every vestige personal responsibility and self reliance; so, in that context, your sentiments make complete sense.
itsrequired
New Member
Don't you think that's a little dramatic? Police had reasonable articulable suspicion that a person who has already shown the capacity to inflict mass casualties is in an area and could be hiding in a residence. Their search was conducted within the guidelines of the United States Constitution.
Again, YOU may not like this but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
One other thing, you keep using the word lockdown for Watertown. This was voluntary. Nobody was forced to be kept in Watertown it was requested by the people trying to keep people safe.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You keep saying "disarmed" as if the police came through and collected all the guns in the Boston area. That's not even close to the truth. The reality is that it is a certainty that some of the residents in Watertown and in greater Boston did indeed have firearms in their homes. No one was "disarmed". Exaggerations don't improve your argument.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I’m talking about the people that wrote the bill. You know, those sneaky little democrats that controlled congress at the time? Actually, they were brilliant in making it a tax rather than an actual healthcare bill. So, given it’s a tax I suppose the SCOTUS got it right. But the individual mandate, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. We will learn more about what’s going to hit us in time; I mean, since no one in congress even bothered to read it.
But here is the deal… If you feel parts of the constitution are wrong, there is a process to change that. It is NOT supposed to be modified at the bench of a courtroom. It’s not supposed to be altered by legislation. But it happens all the time.
I completely understand why people feel better about what happened in Watertown. No one got killed and they got the bad guy. It truly is a testament to their ability to hold a paramilitary operation in the streets of America. If people had been killed by LE in these house-to-house hunts we’d be having a completely different conversation.
With this mentality of our government acting in a way that is for the ‘better good’ you are allowing the government to exercise more power over you; when it should be WE – THE PEOPLE – that acts in our own ‘better good’.
Is this what we really want? Apparently so.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Please don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about; because I’ve stated it several times. Massachusetts has the third most strict gun laws in the country. These laws do everything to discourage people from being armed in their own neighborhoods. This state also has a pretty strict standard on self-defense. Rather than being able to act on an intruder into YOUR OWN HOME, you have to determine there is a real threat, justify it, and if you don't have a means of egress - OUT OF YOUR OWN HOME - you can shoot the intruder. This makes it impossible for any homeowner to act on threats without believing they will end up being convicted of murder.
The scarier part is these people don’t even want to be armed and want these laws. These laws are designed to render the people helpless to protect their own communities and rely on the government to protect us. This was never the intent of our founders. If you even paid any mind to the words of our founders you’d know this.
But the people of Massachusetts are content with handing over these responsibilities to the government and rely on them going house to house, forcing people out of their homes at gunpoint with their hands in the air when a criminal is running loose. If that’s what you envision in this country then that’s what we will get; and that’s what we ARE getting.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I know exactly what you are talking about and that is why I called it a gross exaggeration of the situation. No one disarmed Boston, bostonians are allowed to keep most types of guns in their homes, and had a Bostonian used a gun to defend themselves or their home from these two bombers the state wasnt going to prosecute. The guy would have been hailed as a hero.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Well, far be it for me to believe you really understand what I'm saying.
Again, I understand what you are saying and what you are saying is a gross exaggeration. :shrug:
PsyOps
Pixelated
No you don't. Not one bit.
Read this thread: http://forums.somd.com/news-current-events/269092-right-bear-arms.html
and tell me where I'm exaggerating.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You exaggeration is your implication that the people were unarmed. there were plenty of people in Boston and Watertown who had guns. If the two bombers had decided to enter people's homes there could have been a situation where the suspects were killed while trying to enter. That didn't happen. For all we know the guy who eventually found the suspect in his boat could have had a gun (or guns) in his home.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I’m ‘implying’ that, even if they were armed, MA laws are such that even if they did act, they’d be hauled into court and forced to justify whether they had just means to act – was their life truly at risk, did they have a means to escape out of their home… These limitations on your own self-defense cause you to second-guess whether to act or not. As in the example of the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ thread, because of TX gun laws that allow you to defend yourself and not justify it in a manner that makes you the criminal, if these laws applied in MA I believe the whole chase for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would have been short-lived and all the house-to-house, paramilitary operations wouldn’t have been necessary. If we had a mentality in this country that WE own this country and it’s OURS to protect and defend, this would reduce crime substantially. If criminals knew they didn’t have a chance against an armed citizenry they wouldn’t bother. I made this challenge before. You put a sign on your house that reads “This is a gun-free home” and I’ll put a sign on my house that reads “This home is armed with several firearms, enter without my permission at your own risk” and let’s see which house the criminal chooses.
These communities we live in are OURS. WE should have the RIGHT to defend them. WE should have the RIGHT to protect our own property and not have to go through all sorts of legal wrangling to justify defending my own family and property.
Man, I see we're going to be bumping heads again.
Are you ‘implying’ that being brought forth to some form of inquiry once you’ve used a weapon upon someone seems draconian and unconstitutional to you? Is it another implication that the fact that you are on your property means that whatever you do is beyond reproach? I’ll ask, just where in America does it work that way?
And even if your reading of the MA law indicates a certain thing you should also read the MA Constitution, specifically PART THE FIRST- A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which seems contrary to what you assert with your implication.
“All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.”
Well, it just might be that the law stands as is because it has yet to be challenged. I don’t know but has anyone in MA ever been convicted of using a weapon against an armed intruder or for that matter charged for doing so?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You were implying that the people were disarmed, but..... Your current tack is also fallacious. Boston law would not prevent anyone from defending themselves. If the same thing had happened in the DFW area you would have had about the same result, your assumptions aside.
itsrequired
New Member
Laws are written and challenged and it is up to the courts to interpret those laws. Ever since Marbury V. Madison, the SCOTUS has been the ultimate judge of our laws. You talk about a process and that is it. You may not like some of the outcomes of the process but don’t change the rules when it’s not in your favor.
If a right was violated in Watertown, I’m certain some ambitious lawyer will step up and make a claim. Then the decision will be up to the courts. I, along with most others, feel the constitutional rights of the citizens of Watertown were not violated. If they were, as you said, there’s a process for that.