Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Plus, the "hate crime" definition is purposely nebulous and has only been applied to white people because "it doesn't count as hate when nonwhites do it."
It's funny how blacks can't be racist and women can't be misandrist's, but white men are everything under the sun and if you dare to call that out you deserve to have everything taken from you.
Yes, especially now there are bills to force churches to actively condone homosexuality. If one wishes to go to a church that “celebrates” homosexuality one can do so. But the government cannot make laws that attending churches, temples and the like which hold traditional views means losing constitutional protections.
Clearly the government can make whatever laws it wants with no limitation. There are no more Constitutional protections in America. We're ruled by fiat now.
Although I am extremely pro LGBTQ as a Christian and only donate to pro LGBTQ Christian churches, non-affirming churches should have the same freedoms to their beliefs and not be persecuted.
As a LGBTQ Christian, I am going to be deeply angry if they start persecuting my fellow Christians who happen to not be LGBTQ affirming.
Just know that not all of us are against you guys. If they persecute you guys first they’ll come after LGBTQ Christians eventually if we oppose communism!
That is why we have a First Amendment. I went to an LGBTQ church for a while and they treated my disabled daughter like a piece of trash. Went to another church with a disabled children's ministry and she loves it. If someone is gay, they are gay, noting to do about it. But screw with a disabled child I gave them hell about their hypocrisy. Pretty libertarian in my views, but when you mess with kids it sets me off.
I was told black people can't be racist. The oppressed can't be racist. That leave just whitey to be the only group capable of racism, and be prosecuted of course.
This.
You can scream it's illegal and unconstitutional all you want but if armed enforcers of the state come and take you and lock you away anyways it doesn't really change anything.
Look where we are already. "Shall not be infringed" means no restrictions, pretty clear. Yet we see it broken everyday.
Hate crime laws are focused solely at hurting white people. I'd love to know the statistics of people charged with hate crimes I'm sure it's all white even though the ratio of violent black on white crime is something like 18 to 1. Hate isn't even a crime it's a motive. You should only be allowed to be charged with crimes, and motive should only be considered if you're found guilty, during your sentencing.
The militia at the time was every man from 16 until he is too frail to be of service to his state (often the number 60 was put on this, but history is replete with counter examples). Arguably, children, women, and very old men aren't guaranteed the right to own guns.
At the signing of the constitution the only punishment for felony offense was death, so the idea that felons can have their gun ownership removed might be defensible. I've heard good arguments each way, but the extension of felony offense into everything and anything might end that debate by its practical effects.
Bearable arms must be able to be safely held, transported, and used by a single, healthy, trained male of fighting age. Elephant guns are questionable, mortars, artillery, WMDs, and bombs are out.
There is a pretty solid case for requiring training in gun use of the aforementioned militia, but only when required of the entire group. If Congress or the state wants to pay for nearly 40% of the population to go out and shoot targets until they're good at it, there may be nothing stopping them.
Guns can be taxed differently than other items, but probably only up to reasonable limits (which, given gas, cigarettes, and alcohol probably means they can double the price if they want to).
Finally, the regulation of interstate commerce might allow manufacturing, testing, or other standards to be applied to guns sold across state lines.
There's an awful lot they are allowed to do, but despite that they ran well past the line, and now we have to push to regain the ground lost (and more. Why should only the guns the Constitution requires be allowed? Our forefathers had cannons. That'd be dandy.).
While I agree I can't transport/safely store a tank or mortar rounds (and most can't) who is to say maybe Elon or an oil tycoon couldn't?
If the government has it the people, theoretically, should be able to have it.
Not wanting someone to have a WMD really says more about that individual, IMO, than the weapon itself. That's a big issue with weapons/felons argument but the constitution does not give the federal government power to infringe gun/weapon ownership based on society's dregs.
Some blue states were trying to make it a hate crime to call the police on a black person, after that central parl dog leash karen lady. I think some were successful
There is no such thing as hate crimes. There is just crimes. We already have a perfectly good legal system that protects everyone without inventing crimes to only protect certain groups at the expense of others.
This is exactly right. In a country that truly respects the rule of law, it matters only whether the crime was committed, not the motivation. I thought the founders made this abundantly clear.
When they did the same thing for those convicted of DV misdemeanors or was under a restraining order everyone (including the NRA) thought it was reasonable. This is the inevitable slippery slope that is just starting to tilt.
We have a racism law in our country, and that shit is extremely subjective to the interpretations of the judge. Even when reading the law you just think "what the fuck is this".
Enacting legislation means it needs to pass the house and the Senate. Dems only have a 10 seat advantage in the House and there is a 50/50 split in the senate. A single democrat defection in the senate kills the bill. And if it were to pass, would get sued all the way to the supreme court and likely struck down as unconstitutional.
How about you stop trying to ignore the Constitution you swear to uphold and instead avoid running a gun smuggling operation to Mexican cartels? Who sent those guns, Joe?
Let me guess. Conservative talk is now hate speech which is a hate crime....
Well faggot. Calm the fuck down. Lol. Oops
That’s it buddy hand over the guns!
That’s unironically what they’ll do
895
"Hate crime" in itself is blatantly unconstitutional. It not only punishes freedom of speech, but thought and expression as well. First Amendment??
No constitutional rights in the nwo.
Plus, the "hate crime" definition is purposely nebulous and has only been applied to white people because "it doesn't count as hate when nonwhites do it."
It's funny how blacks can't be racist and women can't be misandrist's, but white men are everything under the sun and if you dare to call that out you deserve to have everything taken from you.
something, something, "who you can't criticize."
If we all just identify as black females, problem solved. Who are they to question?
Sounds like an Infringement to me.
Yes, especially now there are bills to force churches to actively condone homosexuality. If one wishes to go to a church that “celebrates” homosexuality one can do so. But the government cannot make laws that attending churches, temples and the like which hold traditional views means losing constitutional protections.
Clearly the government can make whatever laws it wants with no limitation. There are no more Constitutional protections in America. We're ruled by fiat now.
I was speaking as a former citizen of the United States. The US no longer technically exists as stated in Texas vs Pennsylvania et al.
Although I am extremely pro LGBTQ as a Christian and only donate to pro LGBTQ Christian churches, non-affirming churches should have the same freedoms to their beliefs and not be persecuted.
As a LGBTQ Christian, I am going to be deeply angry if they start persecuting my fellow Christians who happen to not be LGBTQ affirming.
Just know that not all of us are against you guys. If they persecute you guys first they’ll come after LGBTQ Christians eventually if we oppose communism!
That is why we have a First Amendment. I went to an LGBTQ church for a while and they treated my disabled daughter like a piece of trash. Went to another church with a disabled children's ministry and she loves it. If someone is gay, they are gay, noting to do about it. But screw with a disabled child I gave them hell about their hypocrisy. Pretty libertarian in my views, but when you mess with kids it sets me off.
That’s HORRIBLE! Why did they treat your daughter like trash? That’s absolutely disgusting of them.
Because they were too busy being diverse they had no patience for disabled kids. Not kidding.
That’s not Christian AT ALL!
And what is a hate crime? Does this mean you can only rob, beat up, murder etc someone of your own race, gender or religion?
Or can it mean believing a particular theology is incorrect?
Means only white people can be punished. Turned into prison slaves
I am measured in what I say so your point is well taken.
I was told black people can't be racist. The oppressed can't be racist. That leave just whitey to be the only group capable of racism, and be prosecuted of course.
This is extremely illegal too.
Not if they make it legal.
It's only illegal if somebody enforces the law. Americans seem to have been lulled into a false sense of security.
This. You can scream it's illegal and unconstitutional all you want but if armed enforcers of the state come and take you and lock you away anyways it doesn't really change anything.
Look where we are already. "Shall not be infringed" means no restrictions, pretty clear. Yet we see it broken everyday.
They're coming.
Hate crime laws are focused solely at hurting white people. I'd love to know the statistics of people charged with hate crimes I'm sure it's all white even though the ratio of violent black on white crime is something like 18 to 1. Hate isn't even a crime it's a motive. You should only be allowed to be charged with crimes, and motive should only be considered if you're found guilty, during your sentencing.
All. Gun. Laws. Are. Unconstitutional. If I could afford a M1 I should be able to buy one.
The militia at the time was every man from 16 until he is too frail to be of service to his state (often the number 60 was put on this, but history is replete with counter examples). Arguably, children, women, and very old men aren't guaranteed the right to own guns.
At the signing of the constitution the only punishment for felony offense was death, so the idea that felons can have their gun ownership removed might be defensible. I've heard good arguments each way, but the extension of felony offense into everything and anything might end that debate by its practical effects.
Bearable arms must be able to be safely held, transported, and used by a single, healthy, trained male of fighting age. Elephant guns are questionable, mortars, artillery, WMDs, and bombs are out.
There is a pretty solid case for requiring training in gun use of the aforementioned militia, but only when required of the entire group. If Congress or the state wants to pay for nearly 40% of the population to go out and shoot targets until they're good at it, there may be nothing stopping them.
Guns can be taxed differently than other items, but probably only up to reasonable limits (which, given gas, cigarettes, and alcohol probably means they can double the price if they want to).
Finally, the regulation of interstate commerce might allow manufacturing, testing, or other standards to be applied to guns sold across state lines.
There's an awful lot they are allowed to do, but despite that they ran well past the line, and now we have to push to regain the ground lost (and more. Why should only the guns the Constitution requires be allowed? Our forefathers had cannons. That'd be dandy.).
While I agree I can't transport/safely store a tank or mortar rounds (and most can't) who is to say maybe Elon or an oil tycoon couldn't? If the government has it the people, theoretically, should be able to have it. Not wanting someone to have a WMD really says more about that individual, IMO, than the weapon itself. That's a big issue with weapons/felons argument but the constitution does not give the federal government power to infringe gun/weapon ownership based on society's dregs.
This is illegal. Enjoy your lawsuits from 40 states.
Court packing solves that problem.
This is the way.
Complete repudiation of federal authority
Enjoy your succession.
“No standing”
Well apply it to anyone that uses the N word when arrested for another crime. The results could be interesting.
Some blue states were trying to make it a hate crime to call the police on a black person, after that central parl dog leash karen lady. I think some were successful
There is no such thing as hate crimes. There is just crimes. We already have a perfectly good legal system that protects everyone without inventing crimes to only protect certain groups at the expense of others.
This is exactly right. In a country that truly respects the rule of law, it matters only whether the crime was committed, not the motivation. I thought the founders made this abundantly clear.
When they did the same thing for those convicted of DV misdemeanors or was under a restraining order everyone (including the NRA) thought it was reasonable. This is the inevitable slippery slope that is just starting to tilt.
We have a racism law in our country, and that shit is extremely subjective to the interpretations of the judge. Even when reading the law you just think "what the fuck is this".
Simple... just make anything and everything a hate crime
Only liberals will be allowed to own guns
i can't wait to die
Hate crime= factual irrefutable evidence and truth
yes and you all will take it because muh optics!
Infringement.
Enacting legislation means it needs to pass the house and the Senate. Dems only have a 10 seat advantage in the House and there is a 50/50 split in the senate. A single democrat defection in the senate kills the bill. And if it were to pass, would get sued all the way to the supreme court and likely struck down as unconstitutional.
How about you stop trying to ignore the Constitution you swear to uphold and instead avoid running a gun smuggling operation to Mexican cartels? Who sent those guns, Joe?
If that's the case I foresee the number of boating accidents increasing exponentially on a daily basis