Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Gay Marriage=National Reciprocity?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Gay Marriage=National Reciprocity?

    http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling...y-reciprocity/

    Is rather interesting to think how this ruling can mean that weapons permits now must be honored in all states.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

    Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

    Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.
    Oh I'm sure they would figure out a way to pretzel themselves into it magically not applying to gun permits. But it is still a pretty interesting thought train and I'm curious if anyone will actually pursue this.

  4. #4
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

    Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.
    Exactly, do not expect any gain for gun rights based on gay rights. In the eyes of our courts they are separate issues.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Ill be watching how this ruling applies to gun permit holders from outside this anti state.. I see many lawsuits in the future for NJ... My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Exactly, do not expect any gain for gun rights based on gay rights. In the eyes of our courts they are separate issues.
    how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.
    H

    He said in the eyes of the courts.....

    They are hypocrites.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.
    whoa there pardner.. rewind and take a moment to explain that bolded and underlined comment for this bloke...how on earth did you get to welfare programs from the s-s marriage ruling?

    a confused but hoping to be wiser...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Didn't HR 218 end up helping us all get national reciprocity?

    I could swear that's what all the cops and LEO apologists said it would do.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  10. #10
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling...y-reciprocity/

    Is rather interesting to think how this ruling can mean that weapons permits now must be honored in all states.
    That article was written by Bob Owens an inveterate opponent of Open Carry who, despite longstanding legal precedents, thinks he has a right to carry concealed and that government has the right to ban Open Carry. The headline alone should have told you that Owens hasn't a clue but if it didn't, reading his article should have left no doubt.

    The Obergefell decision was certainly an interesting one but it relied on the premise that marriage is a fundamental right. No Federal court has ever held that concealed carry is a right, fundamental or otherwise (not even the vacated 2-1 Peruta decision) and certainly not Moore v. Madigan.

    Absent a fundamental right or a law which is suspect because it involves a classification (such as race) which requires heightened scrutiny by the courts, rational review applies which almost invariably entails that the challenged law survives. Notwithstanding the Federal circuits which assumed that concealed carry implicates the Second Amendment but upheld the laws under intermediate scrutiny which seems to have become the new rational basis review (at least when the Second Amendment is at issue).

    Read the Obergefell decision and then try to rewrite it as if the decision were about concealed carry. What are the prior precedents you would use to shoehorn concealed carry into the Second Amendment right to bear arms? There aren't any.

    This leaves one with a very weak 14th Amendment argument to make in support of concealed carry absent any proof that there was any impermissible motive (such as race) for enacting the concealed carry law, you lose. That 14th Amendment argument would have to be independent of the Second Amendment or the courts will simply construe your 14th Amendment argument to be a Second Amendment argument in disguise which also means you lose.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	60 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12621
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRASAFBrainTrust.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	43.6 KB 
ID:	12622

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

    "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ...commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...
    I continue to be amazed that robed bureaucrats continue to regurgitate this pap. Who, specifically, has argued before them that they have a right to "carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose?"

    It would be nice if these robed bureaucrats would simply state that carrying a rifle or pistol, openly, shall not be infringed.

    This would then clear the way for the assessing of criminal charges on state agents who do infringe upon our OC right.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    whoa there pardner.. rewind and take a moment to explain that bolded and underlined comment for this bloke...how on earth did you get to welfare programs from the s-s marriage ruling?

    a confused but hoping to be wiser...

    ipse
    I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

    I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.

  13. #13
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

    I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.
    The benefits they seek are mostly insurance, but there are others, like a spouse in a hospital where only family are allowed. The gay community is in the higher income brackets, so it is very unlikely they would be as a group expecting welfare.

    If you consider social security welfare then why would it be anymore acceptable for heterosexuals to receive social security?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

    I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.
    Here are a few. None of them have anything to do with welfare.
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles...rriedperks.asp
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30326.html
    Last edited by beebobby; 07-01-2015 at 01:47 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The benefits they seek are mostly insurance, but there are others, like a spouse in a hospital where only family are allowed. The gay community is in the higher income brackets, so it is very unlikely they would be as a group expecting welfare.

    If you consider social security welfare then why would it be anymore acceptable for heterosexuals to receive social security?
    SS is anti-liberty. As is any other entitlement.

    Unmarried couples have always had to take extra measures to enjoy the benefits that married folk do. Have been long before gay marriage became a hot topic. Notably unmarried Hollywood folks...Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, what, 35+ years and never married. Russell raised her kids?

    “A lasting relationship isn’t about marriage," she said. "It’s about compatibility and communication. And you both need to want it to work. If one person does not want it to work, it isn’t going to work. Intention is the key. It’s also about not losing yourself in each other. Being together, two pillars holding up the house and the roof, and being different, not having to agree on everything, learning how to deal with not agreeing. Everything’s a choice.” - Goldie Hawn

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=31481548
    Sounds reasonable to me.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SS is anti-liberty. As is any other entitlement.

    Unmarried couples have always had to take extra measures to enjoy the benefits that married folk do. Have been long before gay marriage became a hot topic. Notably unmarried Hollywood folks...Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, what, 35+ years and never married. Russell raised her kids?

    Sounds reasonable to me.
    While I agree that it is socialism, there is no reason that one group should not be treated like the rest of the country. What has unmarried folks have to do with it? The fact that they wish to be legally married is the issue.

    Again you are making same blanket claims that hoplophobes do.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    While I agree that it is socialism, there is no reason that one group should not be treated like the rest of the country. What has unmarried folks have to do with it? The fact that they wish to be legally married is the issue.

    Again you are making same blanket claims that hoplophobes do.
    If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

    Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

    Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
    well, now, everyone of them there groups you mentioned in your first paragraph can marry, now s-s couples can too...as for you being asexual, might wish to see the medical group to get tested and get ya some testosterone see if that helps...

    as for the bestiality portion of your post i shall await possible censure of it before commenting...

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 07-01-2015 at 11:16 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

    Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
    Here are two gay prisoners, serving life sentences, who are getting married. Yay freedom, in the UK http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ge-full-sutton
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

    Furthermore , since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
    Furthermore http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/201...il-prison.html It can happen in America too. Life sentences do not necessarily bar marriage.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked;2150053
    [b
    Furthermore[/b] , since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
    Furthermore your position is compatible with requiring a license to have children. Having kids ain't a "fundamental' Right. Kids are, after all, a product of sexuality. Pure and simple. And Sexuality ain't a "fundamental" Right.

    I <3 your logical rhetoric [/sarcasm]
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 07-01-2015 at 11:46 PM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cocked&locked View Post
    If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
    Cite were it is not a right.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    what does SS have to do with gay marriage?

    I understand the insurance bit, and the "family only" bit for hospitals. and honestly, yes they never really crossed my mind as benefits cause it's never been a problem for me, so experience has led to short sightedness on this topic.


    and frankly, yes SS is socialism, but it is an ACTUAL entitlement program, I paid into it, your father paid into it, you paid into it, the purpose was for a pension like benefit at retirement and it was suppose to stay a separate fund the feds couldn't touch.. which obviously didn't last long before they got their mits in the cookie jar and moved it over to the general fund and put in a bunch of IOU'S. I believe when it comes to SS you are ENTITLED TO IT because you paid into it all your damn life.

    welfare benefits, that have been rebranded entitlement programs however are NOT entitlements, as NO ONE should be entitled to them, and this silly nonsense of the 4th amendment applies to applicants for welfare which is why they can't pee test them is also B.S. if an employer can require a drug test, and you are receiving money from the government, it should be construed that they are your temporary employer, and as such reserve the right to randomly drug test you to verify your eligibility to receive more temporary "employment" benefits.


    but this is just my opinions...

    there are also other much nefarious purposes to social security ( such as legally taxing the individual by making them part of the merchant marine or a federal employee without actually being one)
    Last edited by Ezek; 07-02-2015 at 09:37 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    what does SS have to do with gay marriage?I understand the insurance bit, and the "family only" bit for hospitals. and honestly, yes they never really crossed my mind as benefits cause it's never been a problem for me, so experience has led to short sightedness on this topic. and frankly, yes SS is socialism, but it is an ACTUAL entitlement program, I paid into it, your father paid into it, you paid into it, the purpose was for a pension like benefit at retirement and it was suppose to stay a separate fund the feds couldn't touch.. which obviously didn't last long before they got their mits in the cookie jar and moved it over to the general fund and put in a bunch of IOU'S. I believe when it comes to SS you are ENTITLED TO IT because you paid into it all your damn life. welfare benefits, that have been rebranded entitlement programs however are NOT entitlements, as NO ONE should be entitled to them, and this silly nonsense of the 4th amendment applies to applicants for welfare which is why they can't pee test them is also B.S. if an employer can require a drug test, and you are receiving money from the government, it should be construed that they are your temporary employer, and as such reserve the right to randomly drug test you to verify your eligibility to receive more temporary "employment" benefits.but this is just my opinions...there are also other much nefarious purposes to social security ( such as legally taxing the individual by making them part of the merchant marine or a federal employee without actually being one)
    The problem is the government stole your money. In order to pay you back, they need to steal from others more than what you paid into it.Are you entitled to another's property?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The problem is the government stole your money. In order to pay you back, they need to steal from others more than what you paid into it.Are you entitled to another's property?
    I think the point is that they should not have stolen in the first place, and these other people are not entitled to what I paid, so take it back from them IMO. eye for an eye style justice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •