CHL Fail

[Tremor14]

Im just here to get the people talking

[Gasser64]

The clear writing of the founders isn't clear at all...It has various types of interpretation, so ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different ways to "hold to the constitution".

Again I must respectfully disagree. When I read it, there doesn't really seem to be much room for "interpretation". Its more like "thems the rules". Yes its broad, yes its general. I really believe this is very intentional, so that its not easily circumvented. We can get into whether or not its still circumvented, some other time. I'm talking about how it was meant to be, and how many politicians and judges still treat it. They're not all bad.

Are you daft? They have gotten their way. For a century. And they continue to do so.

Of course they have. Fucking it up has been their greatest desire, because they're morons. Maybe I should have been more clear, but I wasn't debating that. More along the lines of 'how it should be' rather than, what's going down these days.

Any while the republic concept is fantastic, it has largely been lost and will likely never be attained again. I don't disagree with the "don't like, hit the bricks" thought, but it's just not 2015 'Murica.

Here I do, and don't disagree. I agree that we've lost our way, but I don't agree that its not america 2015. Almost all the people I know would agree with me and most of the people on this site, about the ways that we need to get back to. However, I'm not ignorant to the fact that this is Texas. Go to Washington state, and you'd probably pass out from the sheer overwhelming stupid wafting in the air. That said, we're not some minority. I believe average joe (aka types like us) is in the vast majority. Giving him hope, and getting him to the polls may be another story, but I'm speaking strictly of opinion.

[white88]

alot of my threats wouldnt be so idle if naynay was still naynay :/

[Sean88gt]

Again I must respectfully disagree. When I read it, there doesn't really seem to be much room for "interpretation". Its more like "thems the rules". Yes its broad, yes its general. I really believe this is very intentional, so that its not easily circumvented. We can get into whether or not its still circumvented, some other time. I'm talking about how it was meant to be, and how many politicians and judges still treat it. They're not all bad.

Terms like "broad" and "general" lead to ambiguity that has to be interpreted. Your statement is void in the fact that the court system 1. exists, and 2. has stayed really busy for over 2 centuries interpreting "them rules". And I'm telling you, it has been easily circumvented.

I've posted this before, but you need to go read Marbury v. Madison. Prior to that decision, the role of the court was extremely reigned in. Jefferson defeated Adams in the presidential election, prior to leaving the White House, Adams appointed a ton of JP's, because the rule of the day was that an appointment carried with it a 5 year term, regardless of the presidential handoff. Adams and Jefferson weren't fond of each other, so Adams placed a group that followed his federalist principles, including John Marshall, arguably the most powerful man in the history of the US (and perhaps the world). Marshall was one of the view to accept his office prior to Jefferson being sworn in. Madison was appointed the Secretary of State under Jefferson, and vacated the appointments of the JP's that had not taken their offices. As a result, Marbury (and the rest) filed suit.

The end result was a case where Jefferson/Madison "won", because they weren't forced by a writ of mandamus to give the office(s) to the respective JP's. But what Marshall did was essentially say "you're correct, the Supreme Court can't compel you to install JPs/other positions, but what the Supreme Court can do is x, y, z, everything else."

In one opinion, one man changed the direction of the court and laid out a path for the 3rd branch to have ultimate authority. There were other seminal cases that have changed the direction.

What most people fail to do, yourself included, is understand just how contentious the path towards the Constitution was. They assume that a group of enlightened scholars got together, created a document to endure the test of time, and then retired to their farms. Those cats fucking hated each other. And not one single one of them could have ever imagined the way this country looks today back then. So to say that we should treat it the way it was intended completely misses the way that it came about and how it was birthed from the failed Articles of Confederation with 2 groups that couldn't stand or tolerate the other side (sound familiar??).

Again, disagree all you like, but you cannot fully understand the Constitution and its relationship with American Jurisprudence until you take a Constitutional Law class (and even then, it's a lifelong study). You need to be able to understand how it works, how to apply it, and how to argue all sides. You're simply saying your argument is THE argument, and that is rarely effective.

Of course they have. Fucking it up has been their greatest desire, because they're morons. Maybe I should have been more clear, but I wasn't debating that. More along the lines of 'how it should be' rather than, what's going down these days.

They aren't morons, they are calculating individuals that desire power and control. Dismissing them as stupid is a pitfall - because again, they have won, are winning, and will continue to win.

Here I do, and don't disagree. I agree that we've lost our way, but I don't agree that its not america 2015. Almost all the people I know would agree with me and most of the people on this site, about the ways that we need to get back to. However, I'm not ignorant to the fact that this is Texas. Go to Washington state, and you'd probably pass out from the sheer overwhelming stupid wafting in the air. That said, we're not some minority. I believe average joe (aka types like us) is in the vast majority. Giving him hope, and getting him to the polls may be another story, but I'm speaking strictly of opinion.

Expand your circle Texas, isn't America. Hell, Texas isn't even Texas anymore. I've traveled this country, and have been to every state, short of Maine and Alaska. Most people live their lives and aren't as caught up in the politics as Texans seem to be - that could be this site, or the groups we run with.

At this point, I realize the system is the system and I just want to profit off of it, because it will not change, it will not retreat, it will not ever be what it was, but it will continue to shift.

[Gasser64]

Your post does somewhat prove a bit of my point. If it is indeed some kind of lifelong study (and I don't believe that was the founders' intention) then the way its treated, by many people, isn't always going to be the "intended usage". How many politicians, and members of the courts, have devoted their lives to this lifelong study? I can't be sure, but while many of them are lawyers, I'm going to go with 'not many'.

As for circumventing, yes they still are morons. How does the old saying go? A clever man will always find a way out of a situation, that a wise man would never have gotten into to begin with. Being calculating doesn't make you what I would call smart, and it certainly doesn't make you wise. They can calculate themselves right into a noose, and many of them have. It actually happens with some degree of regularity.

Lastly, who was that president who said something like "Yes the supreme court has ruled against it. Now let us see them enforce it". Some 1800's guy, iirc. I'm not saying I disagree with you, that these things do happen. And happen all the time. But we don't have to say its ok, or that there's nothing we can do, or that its somehow supposed to be that way.

Long story short, I don't take your jaded view. Maybe I'm some kind of idealist, but I still believe in it, and all it takes is good people standing up, to swat those evil POS's back down. Hopefully into death, but that's just wishful thinking. At least into ruin. The peasants can revolt, revolutions happen, and we have a shit ton more ability to affect change than we've ever had at any point in history. They are not somehow all powerful, they are only men. Mere, mortal, flawed, lowly, men.

[juiceweezl]

Your post does somewhat prove a bit of my point...BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...They are not somehow all powerful, they are only men. Mere, mortal, flawed, lowly, men.

[Gasser64]

Not surprising. Congrats on being part of the problem.

[Tremor14]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bystander-shoots-home-depot-shoplifter-detroit_56154391e4b021e856d3128e?utm_hp_ref=crime

[blownaltered]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...m_hp_ref=crime

Just read the article. The woman is a dip shit. She is damn lucky she didn't hit an innocent person. You don't shoot at somebody for lifting shit from a home depot. They should take her chl away.

[Tremor14]

and before anyone says anything about detroit. Auburn Hills is actually a really nice part of town. That is where the Pistons play.

[mustang_revival]

Good thing the shoplifter didn't run over a 4 year old in the process of fleeing.

Or shit on the ground and have an elderly man slip and break a hip.

It does raise questions.

[mustang_revival]

"A 47- year-old Clarkston woman in the parking lot witnessed one of the store’s loss prevention officers trying to stop a shoplifting suspect getting into a dark colored SUV. The customer — identified as a concealed pistol license holder — reportedly fired shots at the dark-colored SUV as it sped out of the lot.

It’s unknown how many rounds were fired from her 9mm handgun, but police believe she hit and flattened one of the vehicle’s rear tires as it sped off in the direction of Brown Road."

While reckless and illegal, I can't help but think these guys will think twice before stealing again.

[Forever_frost]

Sorry I missed responding on this. Sean, I meant the Puckle Gun.