Supreme Court Rules Against Migrants’ Rights To Bond Hearings In Detention + 2nd amendment

originally posted by: JinMI
To don abit of tinfoil on the notion, should you need markers for identifying civil strife, that would certainly be one.

Not sure what your asking here.. please dumb it down for me.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JinMI
To don abit of tinfoil on the notion, should you need markers for identifying civil strife, that would certainly be one.

Not sure what your asking here.. please dumb it down for me.

Imagine the optics of the SCOTUS holding a CA judge in contempt

a reply to: RonnieJersey

Notice how the Liberal MSM doesn't ask the illegal aliens any questions?

Conservative Outlets do. Every one of the migrants knew where they were being shipped to (NYC, DC, Chicago, etc..) and every one of them was HAPPY to be in America and ALIVE, instead of dead in a Semi-Trailer truck.

If these LAW BREAKERS are being used as pawns by the governors of TX and FL, that's fine.

Better PAWNS than DEAD.

a reply to: JinMI

Optics be damned... and Scotus ordered all Federal appeals courts to review current rulings based on Scotus new ruling. The appeals Courts have their hands tied now. The optics would be they have their hands tied because Blue States think they are above the law and Scotus does not matter.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

Optics be damned... and Scotus ordered all Federal appeals courts to review current rulings based on Scotus new ruling.

Im aware.

As aware as how the 2nd amendment is supposed to be uninfringed.

...yet here we are.

a reply to: JinMI

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is the US Constitution never originally applied to the states. It applied to DC and Federal employees only. It was not until 1869 when Scotus applied the 14th amendment to all states, thereby applying the Federal Constitution to all states. As a result each state had their own gun laws. Some states heavily restricted guns while others did not. Scotus had to take that into account from the point on. The population of a state was ok with heavy restrictions on guns and al; of a sudden Scotus says no, anyone can have a gun.

Thats why it took so long for Scotus to decide the 2nd amendment applied to the individual and not just state militia. It is also why Scotus ruled the 2nd amendment is not limitless and a state does have the right to regulate certain aspects of gun ownership.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sarahvital

They want bail / bond..

I have no idea what your talking about them wanting guns. Foreign nationals (in almost all cases but there are exceptions) cannot own / posses a firearm. Unless you read to far into the thread title. Every time I tried to clarify the title it was too large to post.

lol, ok my fault.

i added the 2nd half into the first part.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet the NFA is a federal act superceding the constitution and states rights.

Bruen changed the game and from what cases are being taken, we are in for a wild ride.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet the NFA is a federal act superceding the constitution and states rights.

Bruen changed the game and from what cases are being taken, we are in for a wild ride.

The NFA deals with taxes on firearms. It does not violate the Constitution as it also gives Congress the power to levy taxes, especially when it comes to imports and interstate commerce.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok, fair enough

A loophole that supercedes the constitution and states rights.

Which is what CA is/was trying to do again. Some states working on required firearm insurance

i think someone should give bail to the actual US citizens from j6 first.

one can assume the border jumpers broke laws in at least 2 countries.

screw them.

a reply to: JinMI

We are required to have insurance on our cars... on our residences...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

We are required to have insurance on our cars... on our residences...

Let freedom ring.....

originally posted by: sarahvital


i think someone should give bail to the actual US citizens from j6 first.

one can assume the border jumpers broke laws in at least 2 countries.

screw them.

Bail? NOPE.

The reaming charges need to be dropped and everyone else convicted needs to have their convictions overturned and expunged. The prosecutors need to be admonished by the courts then disbarred.

a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough however given what I do for a living I have seen destroyed homes, car accidents. I have cited people for no proof of insurance for their cars. The home insurance is usually a requirement by the bank where you get your loan from and it makes sense. It is the exact same for auto insurance for new cars.

If some idiot runs into your car with their car and they don't have insurance who pays for your car repair. Usually your insurance (depends on the state and if thru are a fault or no fault state). Same hold true if the idiot driver runs off the road and through the wall of a house.

My state is now Constitutional carry for firearms. No CCW is required. People I have come across who are armed should not be armed. If someone is going to be responsible for carrying a firearm, and they are stupid, and someone gets shot because of that stupidity, someone has to pay the bills. Criminal statutes are not going to cover your hospital nor your legal bills.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is a medium between affordable mandated insurance vs multi billion dollar profits year over year.

Now instead of insurance, or maybe even concurrent (if you can convinve me), firearm education should be as ubiquitous as free speech and math in schools.

Then you broached the damages argument which to be clear boils down to the lawyers involved and of course thats a sliding scale.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

We are required to have insurance on our cars... on our residences...

hunting knife?

claw hammer?


3' section of a 2x4?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: sarahvital


i think someone should give bail to the actual US citizens from j6 first.

one can assume the border jumpers broke laws in at least 2 countries.

screw them.

Bail? NOPE.

The reaming charges need to be dropped and everyone else convicted needs to have their convictions overturned and expunged. The prosecutors need to be admonished by the courts then disbarred.

i can live with that
but i didn't spend 17 months in a cell.

besides disbarring, they should be charged with conspiracy all the way to the top of the doj and fbi and dc correctional system.
unleash the law suits!

a reply to: sarahvital

nope

a reply to: Xcathdra

A car is not a right in the constitution though. There are laws requiring insurance, new or paid off, but the prices quite diffrent.

I'm unaware of laws requring one to have homeowner's insurance. Lenders will often require you to have insurance, but not everyone has lenders.

I hate the argument that you shouln't be able to exercise your constitutional right without insurance. That just puts another way for the ones in charge to control your ability to exercise it. Next you'll need insurance to exercise your freedom of speech...I just think it starts to lead down a bad trail.