Elkins45
Member
Think of it as an example of “giving them a taste of their own medicine.”I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
Think of it as an example of “giving them a taste of their own medicine.”I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
Kentuckians need to do everything we can to stay ahead of that guy!last months election of a communist governor , sure has got it going! Last month's election actually was a very slim margin of about 4800 votes.
I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
the SCOTUS has not ruled definitively on the 2nd amendment which is why states like NJ can do what they want. Va. is in line for such restrictions now.
I'm not particularly "amused," at any of it. Sanctuary cities obstruct immigration enforcement, etc..... The sanctuary movement as relates to guns is relative to citizens of the United States. One has nothing to do with the other.
Sure it does. Immigration is federal law. Would you feel the same way if congress passed another AWB? That would also be federal law.
What sanctuary anything has to do with is local government taking back it's right to govern the way the good citizens wish it to be governed. All that's happening here is a division between state and local gov't. brought about by conditions of mass urbanization. You can't have it both ways.
That’s how it happens. The one or two largest Muncipal areas run the whole state.I'm from ky, it has spread like wildfire since monday, this past week they have released prefilling of 5 or 6 radical gun Bill's, any at all is radical, and last months election of a communist governor , sure has got it going! Last month's election actually was a very slim margin of about 4800 votes, there was mainly only 2 counties that accounted for the lost out of 120 counties, fayette and Jefferson, which is where lexington, and louisville are.
No. I didn't express my opinion either/or. Proposed sanctuary locations as relates to guns concerns citizen opposition. Immigration sanctuaries do not. Prosecutorial discretion comes to play. There is no correlation for precedence.
Seems you read the bill of rights differently than I do. Seems to me at least, that my right to bear arms is protected. I fail to see the amendment that covers sneaking into my country illegally being protected. I don't blame the people sneaking in, pretty sure any of us would try it were the roles reversed.I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
Yes ... State of Jefferson! (We sure did try to split the state of CA and if another vote would take place, it would be a resounding YES)The rural areas and the residents therein could be dropped en masse into any “red” state and people there wouldn’t know the difference because they’re from the same stock with the same beliefs and opinions.
The idea and movement remained alive and well into the 2000s - teens to include many northern CA counties when the movement transitioned to include rest of central/southern CA as "New California" (52 out of 58 counties currently supporting) - https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-california-could-become-51st-state_2951312.htmlState of Jefferson ideas were floated to break off northern Ca and Southern Oregon into Jefferson back in the 1980s.
Seems you read the bill of rights differently than I do. Seems to me at least, that my right to bear arms is protected. I fail to see the amendment that covers sneaking into my country illegally being protected. I don't blame the people sneaking in, pretty sure any of us would try it were the roles reversed.
I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
There isn't one. The constitution left that up to congress. Apparently they left your RKBA up to the states or at least that's how the lower courts have interpreted it. They must keep reading 10A and believe 2A restricts only the federal gov't from infringement. I don't know but that's how it looks to me.
So now state rights are above the bill of rights? The second amendment specifically affirms the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. While I agree that the bill of right grants no rights, but prevents the government from infringing on those rights. I don't think the framers meant, "unless the states want to infringe".
Actually, if you read the federalist papers, you can pretty well know what they meant. As long as the meaning of words as they knew them are used. Like how people think regulated means under regulations. Instead what the framers meant, as in good working order, or well practiced or kept regular!Wouldn't it be nice if somebody could go back in time and ask them exactly what they meant?
Actually, if you read the federalist papers, you can pretty well know what they meant. As long as the meaning of words as they knew them are used. Like how people think regulated means under regulations. Instead what the framers meant, as in good working order, or well practiced or kept regular!
Sorry, I thought you were arguing against me instead of with me. Welcome to the choir.Yep, read all of that. Convince a federal district court judge. You're preaching to the choir.
Illegal immigrants. Something folks like to leave off.I'm amused at the number of folks who think sanctuaries for immigrants are bad things support sanctuaries for guns.
Yep.Seems to me at least, that my right to bear arms is protected. I fail to see the amendment that covers sneaking into my country illegally being protected