We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Instituted- means to start up! Who started the government the easter bunny.

We hold these truths to be self evident, for you stumbler self evident means obvious, so what is obvious all men meaning We the People. Government can only do what We The People consent to.

Unless you want to be a slave!

Study's from the U.S. department of education shows that 45 million people in the U.S. are totally illiterate and 95 million are functionaly illiterate. Everyone on this forum now knows that you are one of the 45 million.

 

How about you tell me what the fuck a mexican has to do with this.

Again you have no argument so (as a good progressive does) change the subject and try to get into a race baiting. (by bringing in the mexicans)

I will let you know right now, if you want to call me a racist go right ahead I could care less. So this will not work with me. So sorry.

 

Colleges: Damned if you don't; sued if you do Former Student Sues College Over Stay in a Mental Ward

Quote:
But in the late fall of her second year at Brooklyn College, in 2008, Sophia Chinemerem Eze went to the security staff there, saying she had experienced problems with her off-campus roommates and suspected that her landlord had planted a video camera in her bedroom. She wound up on a psychiatric ward at Kings County Hospital Center, and in a lawsuit filed last week, Ms. Eze says the college played a role in hospitalizing her without cause.
Quote:
But Ms. Eze herself made a series of postings on her MySpace page that are alternately rambling and menacing. In one, she announced that she was disowning the Eze family and changing her name to Sophia Abraham McWill. In another, she wrote, “I am BY FAR SANER than any of you,” adding that she “would GLADLY destroy it all to make sure YOU PAY.”
Quote:
Another lawyer, Gregory Antollino, said Ms. Eze won a $110,000 settlement last year from the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs Kings County Hospital Center. He said an examining physician told Ms. Eze that if she did not sign herself in, then doctors would commit her involuntarily, resulting in a longer stay. “So they tricked her on that basis,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/ny...amera.html?hpw

Arizona law on immigration puts police in tight spot

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904970.html?wprss=rss_world

 

Ignorant fool the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

The U.S. Constitution is all of the Charters of Freedom. The Bill of Rights is a seperate document and from your point of view, has no legal standing.

So how long have you been a communist?

 

As I was out shopping for which gun has a bigger load, I wonder if I could get some advice?

a
View attachment

or b

View attachment

It needs to be able to be versatile, able to meet various intense situations.

 

Most obvious ignorant fool on the forum

The first ten amendments or what you call the bill of rights is part of the US Constitution you hilarious fool. Its the declaration of independence that has no legal standing what so ever.

 

Sorry Stumbles, in 1841 the Amistad court case the document was found to have legally standing by the US Supreme Court.

 

They haven't been banned down under,you just need a valid excuse to own one,sport & recreation,employment,primary production etc pay your yearly tax on each class of licence and provide verification that you use certain classes of weapon,not "keep it under the bed" so to speak.

 

Bullshit

The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence

A quick search at Findlaw indicates that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion.



Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence.



There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.
​

http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

So you are saying before they outlawed guns (which they didnt), their murder rate was a twelth of the US murder rate and now its only a quarter?


Every time you lie on the internet, your mom gets disappointed.

 

And if he does not want to enforce AZ law then fine let him enforce federal law. And that is the same as the AZ law.

I think it is great that people want to come here to America, BUT it has to be done the right way. My family came here through Ellis Island these people are jumping fences and the works. If there country sucks let them fix it.

Have you ever see what the immigration laws for Mexico are??


Mexico's Immigration laws.

n the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;

foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.
It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.
We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

 

I thought you said you would keep our photos private LOL

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
　
Secure means - free from danger or harm
Unalienable means - Can never be taken away, guaranteed to ourselves, fixed.

We the people instituted governments to secure these rights, legally binding rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court can not take them away, if they did it would be an act of treason. An overthrow of the Constitution. A decloration of war against we the people. I don't think they are that stupid.

So it is obvious The Decloration of Indepenance is a legally binding Charter.

Basic common sense

 

Do you have your ...........

............ Glock?

PS Shit head==The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence

A quick search at Findlaw indicates that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion.



Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence.



There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.

 

What a fucking idiot. Thats because the Supreme Court did its job protecting our rights. They did what they are suposed to do. Of course you will never find a case.

You take stuped to a whole new level!

 

I can honestly state that you take ignorance and stupidity to new levels.

The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two separate documents.

The job of the US Supreme Court is to make sure that the laws that are done by the government are constitutional.

In other words the US Supreme Court is going to be using the US Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence when deciding if the law which was created was constitutional or unconstitutional.

To show you a quick example of this, let me give you a little bit of historical background.

The Declaration of Independence was created on July 4, 1776. The essence of this document was for the 13 colonies to declare independence from Great Britain. Thus the name of the document being the Declaration of Independence.

The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787. The essence of this document was for there to be a written document which read the roles and duties of the government, and the original 10 rights of the American citizens. And as you know the original 10 rights of the American citizens is called the Bill of Rights.

Here is your quick example.

Now, if the Declaration of Independence had been used as a basis for a ruling at the US Supreme Court, it should have been to decide Brown v. Board of Education. Yet it was not, because what was used was the US Constitution for the basis for the ruling. The use of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

I hope this makes you realize your faults, and accept you are wrong.

 

I take that back you are the dumbest person in the world

 

You better have an explanation as to your statement. Because I am using proof and facts to teach you and argue you.

So please show in my statement what makes me the dumbest person in the world, as you state.