Rhode Island under attack
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN9_...2A0FWbqwO66D-6

LOTS of bad bills proposed and a few good ones

If you care about your rights, speak up

most of these are redundant but liberal hysteria among lawmakers is rampant apparently.

House Bill 7266 - Making it illegal to Challenge Someone to a Duel, hahahaha. Yes folks, you read that right. Better make sure you challenge someone to a duel prior to this passing so you can be grandfathered in....

Hey - if you can still Duel in RI, can you also request Trial by Combat for a Parking Ticket? Someone wants to know.

Proposed Law Could Mean No More Free Porn In Rhode IslandState

legislators introduced a bill last week that would require residents to pay a one-time $20 fee to access pornography sites or other "offensive material" online.

easier to get a gun then a Hard on :lama:

You have to wait 7 days for a Stiffy?

:rotf2:

Just wait a few years
The blue pill will be your friend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can joke about the stupid laws these idiots want passed, but in Washington state the first victim of a so called "red flag" bill has lost his constitutional rights because some snowflake was scared of him. No charges, no crime, nothing, yet he lost his guns with no due process, no chance to defend himself.
"We're from the government and we are here to help"

That’s exactly what Don-in-chief said he wanted, isn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But many people have no issues with cops shooting and killing unarmed people

Many conservatives try to blame the person shot .. they shouldn't of moved fast , or the cops defense he thought they had a gun or they were in fear for their lives ... where is the due process in that

Apply the reasons police can shoot you . to red flag bill securing your weapons because your a possible threat or fear for others lives .. Conservatives should support the bill

but because it involves guns .. they worry about due process

:huh:

There are some people that should not have access to a firearm and they needs to be some mechanism in place to remove firearms when someone is extremely dangerous with a potential to user them HOWEVER there also needs to hard and predefined limits to how this can be used and for rights to be restored. Due process must be adhered to.

He talks out of both sides of his mouth like many children

Huh? Most cops shooting people are doing so as a result of a dangerous / illegal activity in process. Most times it is justified, unfortunate, but justified. Very few cases are determined that the LEO was at fault thought it does happen too much.

Huh? Your explanations for most things aligns with this newer several decade trend of lack of logic which is why I am no longer a Dem.

You would think that important items such as rights and liberty would be more universal and held in better regard across all political spectrum - and that the difference would be how to address the faults in the system to make it better so that it applies fair opportunity to all. But no - the left is trying to bring down the system. Maybe everyone on the left does not realize it but the useful idiots will follow along.

I believe your right to speak shall not be infringed.
I believe your right to protect yourself and your family shall not be infringed.
I believe your right to prevent improper search and seizure shall not be infringed.
I believe your right to speedy and fair trial speak shall not be infringed.
I believe your right to speak shall not be infringed.

Where are the problems with these items??



I know

And i believe your right to sport your tin foil hat..." the left is trying to bring down the system.". a just another talking point of the rights .. talk about a big wide brush

you cant just have the change you want nor can I




Most cops shooting people are doing so as a result of a dangerous / illegal activity in process. Most times it is justified, unfortunate, but justified.

Due process ^^^^^^unfortunate, but justified.

take guns from a potential threat "Due process must be adhered to.


but red flag bill to you is outrageous you just made my point

I didn't see that one in the Bill of Rights....maybe in the living and breathing addendum...:hihi:

It is obvious we don't want guns in the hands of unstable people, so if there is actual evidence present other than someone's accusation, then investigate it and allow the person to defend the red flag. Why is that so difficult.

yep

I don't do tinfoil hats and conspiracies so nice try.

I want a peaceful more benevolent society where people treat each other better and those same people a free to live their lives under less control of others - what do you ant?


Yes terrible. I wish there was away to say "everyone freeze for 2 days" while we work this out. That is the sad part of judgement calls - you have to make one in an instant that will forever have ramifications on all involved. You have been there before, right? How do you get around that??




Due Process must be adhered to for everything smartguy, in every where and way possible if circumstances allow it. That should be the default and applied evenly. We are not there yet but that is what we should be moving toward.

You didn't make any point. You claim you have made a point, you may have convinced yourself you have made a point but there is not point.

As I have stated before Red Flag systems may be the way to go and may be an acceptable but necessary impact on one's rights but they have to figure out the Due Process, guarantees of it being judicious and fair, with ability to appeal. Due Process. What do you not understand about that??

No, he says something that he thinks is reasonable (even if it isn't) and his handlers remind him that the NRA was a big supporter and he has to walk the statement back...

The National Rifle Association has sued Florida after it passed a gun control

will they sue RI if their Red flag bill passes

I am guessing they will argue waiting 3days and being 21 s an infringement of your right to own gun..

on this they will go with an originalist view of the wording of the 2a

then change to 21st century reading of 2a in the argument on for bump stocks

The NRA will be going after the DOJ if the bump stock ban moves forward, any reason we need the bump stocks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We need bump stocks for the zombie apocalypse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wouldn't worry, now that everybody knows what they are they can whip up a bunch in shop class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originalist view is 21st century as well as any past century back to the writing of the Constitution or to any future century. It is not time dependent.

I don't know what you mean by "21st century reading". If you mean a "Progressive" reading, which has been around for a century or so, it is also not time dependent as a methodology, although it does depend on "time" for "interpretation."

An originalist would determine if the state has the constitutional power to pass the law. If the law conflicted with its citizens rights. And would write a decision based on the meaning of the words in the Constitution--a decision based on the law.

A Progressive would decide on the basis of a personal view of some higher purpose, or some socially just, or socially equitable outcome, regardless of whether the state had a written constitutional authority to pass the law or not. The Progressive then, per custom, would write a circuitous but legalistic sounding summation to make the decision appear to be in accordance with the Constitution.

You can imagine, I hope, what a century of Progressive jurisprudence has done to the constitutional order. Actually, Progressivism, at its core (if it has one), is not agreeable to the basic concept of law or principle. Law and principle are, by their nature, too confining and inelastic. Too permanent. For a Progressive, "law" is temporary regulation. It is derived from the constantly fluctuating views of the day as perceived by the majority of current Progressive social and intellectual theorists. Rather than being a 21st century view (a century is too long, too unevolved), Progressivism is the view of the moment. Social ideas can change rapidly if not grounded by some fixed principles of human nature. The notion of identities can change overnight. Genders can proliferate from two to dozens. Race can be a matter of opinion. Equality becomes actual outcome rather an interface with the law.

Opinion, rather than law or principle, guides the Progressive view. Of course, the opinion must be formed by the experts--the academics in the liberal arts, sociology, law, and journalism departments of our predominantly Progressive colleges and universities.

Progressives like to attach their view of government to some notion of evolution. But government evolution is a contradiction. Evolution is random. Government is prescribed. There is no judicial branch of evolution which defines gender or natural order, nor a legislative branch of evolution which determines the next random "accident." If there were an executive overseeing evolution, it would be a god, not an accidental, random force.

Claiming evolution as its driving force is a self-deceptive trick to justify a government's power to rule without opposition, without constraint. It is a scientifically sounding persuasion to justify the transformation of our constitutional order into a modernized version of old-fashioned authoritarianism.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/...rundel-county/

Red flag bill ends this mans life at the hands of police.
Sounds to me like he answers door, sees it is police so he places his handgun down next to the door, is told or reads the ERPO and gets irate, picks his gun back up and the cop tries to physically take it from him instead of negotiating with the man who is clearly upset. That is not a reason to murder someone. The cop made a choice to grab at the gun and clearly it was the wrong choice. If I was that guy I would have said see you in court and shut the door.
Pretty sad story.