Shots fired at Central Michigan University

[PraiseKek]

Of course we are a democracy, halfwit.. We are a republic founded and operated on democratic principles.. We aren't a SOCIALIST Republic.

We are a democratic republic under which the will of the majority is followed so long as it does not conflict with the Constitutionally protected inalienable rights of the minority, Floridafan is arguing for a tyranny of the majority with his claim that the 2/3s of people who are non-gun owners are going to violate the 2nd amendment rights of the 1/3 that are.

If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment there is one legal option and one only, and you'll find it in Article 5 of the Constitution, good luck.

 

[PraiseKek]

So YOU decide what laws you will follow and which ones you will ignore?

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[floridafan]

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! If a law violates the constitution, it's not a law.

Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PraiseKek]

Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thomas Jefferson was pathetic?

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

Tell us more about your great insight into the Constitution!

 

[Nordberg]

if you think that freedom is the government telling you where your rights begin and end, then YOU are the fool.

That is their job. The Supremes interpret the constitution for uninformed people like you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

awww, are you mad because I don't fall to your whims of slavery? If a law was made to outlaw abortion, would you be happy about that because it's 'the law'?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is their job. The Supremes interpret the constitution for uninformed people like you.

no, it is not. the supreme court didn't write the constitution, they usurped the power to interpret it and you low information citizens have let them. you let them do that because you fear freedom of others and need to feel that the government can keep you safe.

 

[Nordberg]

How are guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a bad thing?

What a stupid question. It results in thousands of Americans getting shot every year. It makes every aspect of out life more dangerous. It is how rightys settle disputes. It is kids playing with parents guns and shooting themselves and other kids.. Having guns makes your family less safe. But they are collateral damage to your love of guns.

 

[Granule]

Oh shit, they're getting closer to home.

Guns usually travel in pairs, dumbass, so please be careful.

 

[Bourbon]

[h=1]The shooting at Central Michigan - it was the shooter killing his parents - he may be cornered[/h]

Police: Central Michigan University student shot parents to death in dorm

Police believe a Central Michigan University student shot his parents to death Friday when they came to pick him up for spring break.

The shooting took place around 9:30 a.m. in Campbell Hall, which is part of the Towers residence halls on the west side of campus. Nobody else was injured besides the two people who died.

Authorities were looking for 19-year-old Eric Davis Jr. He was last seen running north from the scene.

He is a 19-year-old black male who is approximately 5-foot-10 and 135 pounds. He is wearing mustard yellow jeans and a blue hoodie. He may have taken off the blue hoodie.

He is considered armed and dangerous. Anyone who sees the suspect, do not approach him and call 911 immediately.

http://www.abc12.com/content/news/P...-shot-parents-to-death-in-dorm-475667753.html

 

[Truth Detector]

That is their job. The Supremes interpret the constitution for uninformed people like you.

So when they interpreted that slavery was okay; you were okay with that? Dunce.

Dred Scott v. Sandford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

 

[Truth Detector]

What a stupid question. It results in thousands of Americans getting shot every year.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens result in thousands getting shot? Link us up dumbfuck. Talk about stupid!!

It makes every aspect of out life more dangerous.

So you have even bigger issues with cars right? You really are too stupid for words.

It is how rightys settle disputes. It is kids playing with parents guns and shooting themselves and other kids.. Having guns makes your family less safe. But they are collateral damage to your love of guns.

Now you're just being absurd and moronic. Why is it that when lying liberals are caught being dishonest, they double down and become even more asinine?

 

[Truth Detector]

[h=1]The shooting at Central Michigan - it was the shooter killing his parents - he may be cornered[/h][FONT=Verdana
[B]Police: Central Michigan University student shot parents to death in dorm[/B]

Police believe a Central Michigan University student shot his parents to death Friday when they came to pick him up for spring break.

The shooting took place around 9:30 a.m. in Campbell Hall, which is part of the Towers residence halls on the west side of campus. Nobody else was injured besides the two people who died.

Authorities were looking for 19-year-old Eric Davis Jr. He was last seen running north from the scene.

He is a 19-year-old black male who is approximately 5-foot-10 and 135 pounds. He is wearing mustard yellow jeans and a blue hoodie. He may have taken off the blue hoodie.

He is considered armed and dangerous. Anyone who sees the suspect, do not approach him and call 911 immediately.

http://www.abc12.com/content/news/P...-shot-parents-to-death-in-dorm-475667753.html[/FONT]

NRA member? Trump voter? Not likely. Did he buy the gun legally? Was it a handgun or a scary semi-auto?

 

[Sirthinksalot]

Keep in mind that the NRA represents far less that half of this country

Simply because millions of people choose not to or can't afford to pay dues to be card carrying members, doesn't mean they don't support the NRA.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What a stupid question. It results in thousands of Americans getting shot every year. It makes every aspect of out life more dangerous. It is how rightys settle disputes. It is kids playing with parents guns and shooting themselves and other kids.. Having guns makes your family less safe. But they are collateral damage to your love of guns.

liberal anti gun talking points. the party of no responsibility dictating how we can be safer is hilarious

 

[PraiseKek]

no, it is not. the supreme court didn't write the constitution, they usurped the power to interpret it and you low information citizens have let them. you let them do that because you fear freedom of others and need to feel that the government can keep you safe.

If the court does not have the inferred power of judicial review then what, outside of armed insurrection, is there to prevent the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws; such as, the DNC proposed gun ban legislation?

I see nothing inherently wrong or unconstitutional about judicial review, rather the problem comes when they start legislating from the bench instead of taking an original intent approach. Listening to half of these people you'd swear the thing was written in Latin rather than plain English.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If the court does not have the inferred power of judicial review then what is to prevent the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws; such as, the proposed gun ban legislation outside of armed insurrection? I see nothing wrong or inherently unconstitutional about judicial review the problem comes when they start legislating from the bench rather than taking an original intent approach. Listening to hald of these people you'd swear the thing was written in Latin rather than plain English.

the court has power to dismiss charges with prejudice, preventing the government from bringing the same charges again. we the people also have the power to nullify by jury if the courts do not do their job. allowing the courts to have judicial review takes the constitution out of the hands of who wrote it and leaves it in the hands of the judiciary, something the framers did not intend.

 

[PraiseKek]

So when they interpreted that slavery was okay; you were okay with that? Dunce.

Dred Scott v. Sandford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

The 3/5s compromise was pretty clear and slavery required an Article 5 remedy.

 

[PraiseKek]

the court has power to dismiss charges with prejudice, preventing the government from bringing the same charges again. we the people also have the power to nullify by jury if the courts do not do their job.

That would only apply to the individual charged, the statute would still be on the books and could still be used against others, are you going to have trials for every gun owner in America and hope the court/jury rules/votes properly in every case?

allowing the courts to have judicial review takes the constitution out of the hands of who wrote it and leaves it in the hands of the judiciary, something the framers did not intend.

Not true:

In all, fifteen delegates from nine states made comments regarding the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws. All but two of them supported the idea that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review.[19] Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not speak about judicial review during the Convention, but did speak about it before or after the Convention. Including these additional comments by Convention delegates, scholars have found that twenty-five or twenty-six of the Convention delegates made comments indicating support for judicial review, while three to six delegates opposed judicial review.[20] One review of the debates and voting records of the convention counted as many as forty delegates who supported judicial review, with four or five opposed.[21]

In their comments relating to judicial review, the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.[22][23]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That would only apply to the individual charged, the statute would still be on the books and could still be used against others, are you going to have trials for every gun owner in America and hope the court/jury rules/votes properly in every case?

how many times do you think the government would charge citizens only to know that they will be dismissed immediately?

Not true:

In all, fifteen delegates from nine states made comments regarding the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws. All but two of them supported the idea that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review.[19] Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not speak about judicial review during the Convention, but did speak about it before or after the Convention. Including these additional comments by Convention delegates, scholars have found that twenty-five or twenty-six of the Convention delegates made comments indicating support for judicial review, while three to six delegates opposed judicial review.[20] One review of the debates and voting records of the convention counted as many as forty delegates who supported judicial review, with four or five opposed.[21]

In their comments relating to judicial review, the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.[22][23]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

interesting. do you have any of the commentaries provided to the people before ratification?