What do you think of this in relation to New Mexico's gun ban?

[Juxtapose]

[Lliam]

She's just another rabid Democrat who disdains the Constitution and individual freedom. Her action is in violation of the Constitution and her oath to support and defend it.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I say that these people should be removed from office in handcuffs and tried for sedition and treason.

[exitseven]

Maybe a good hanging would put the fear of God into these democrats.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[NamerOfStars]

Let's take a look:

241: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So 242 doesn't apply, since the ban is blanket, but it WOULD horrify many Republicans for the restrictions they want to (or, in some cases, DO) impose on illegal immigrants. 241, on the other hand, not only would call for the arrest of the governor of New Mexico, but just about every last member of Congress who's voted for a defense spending bill in the last forty years.

[Juxtapose]

"but just about every last member of Congress who's voted for a defense spending bill in the last forty years."

I'm okay with that.

[AngryCarl2]

@NamerOfStars How did you get from reading the law to arresting the government?

[NamerOfStars]

@AngryCarl2 By noting that the government's doing things that violate the law and, as per the law, warrant arrest. Basic legal accountability; it's not a big leap.

[AngryCarl2]

@NamerOfStars The government didn't "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person". Nor did they kidnap, abuse or intend to kill. So executing the government seems like an over-reation not supported by the legislation.

[NamerOfStars]

@AngryCarl2 Every victim of the SS would disagree- the Constitution specifically prohibits slavery, but they go right on ahead anyway. That's kidnapping and oppression at BEST. So, yes, they DID violate the law, and every one who voted for defense bills expanding its role ALSO has.

You and I have both aged out of the danger zone; that doesn't mean our responsibilities to keep the government in line have ended.

[Exterminatore]

There is absolutely no doubt states that favor strict gun control are attempting to violate citizens rights.


They know they can make the law and enforce it. To challenge its constitutionally one must be caught violating the law, risk criminal trial, hire a lawyer capable of defeating the states well funded lawyers in a criminal trial, and then formally challenge its constitutionally which will likely be heard in state Supreme Court, where the judges are politically appointed and will rule against you.


I think practically all gun control legislation is illegal. “Shall not be infringed.” Which part of that statement are these turds confused about? The right to KEEP and BEAR (carry arms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Libs say the Constitution is a flexible and living document. It is not. It says what it says. They say: Supreme Court judges interpret the Constitution. What is there to interpret about shall not be infringed? Seems pretty clear to me. That is just another way they trample on your rights and ensure there will be no resistance to the global elites who control the politicians who appoint the judges.

[Juxtapose]

We need some way for the citizenry to check the corrupt politicians because they can just appoint people who will interpret the Constitution however the deep state wants.

[Exterminatore]

Exactly the problem! Well said.

[Lionman95]

I say it's not helpful but instead increases the differences between Democrats and Republicans even more if you want a second civil war go for it because that's what you could get if you use that order. What you need is rational discussion not an emotional that's the fundament for an emotional.

[Juxtapose]

That decree she issued was what started all this and she is the litmus test for the elites and a scapegoat.

[KrakenAttackin]

Well said. Firearms ownership is a fundamental right for sure.

[Likes2drive]

It’s a right to own a gun in the USA if you don’t have a criminal background, not sure how one state can ban them but it’s not going to stop criminals from owning one anyway

[BoopBoopBeep]

Missouri said a while ago that they won't enforce any federal gun laws that conflict with state laws or their state constitution. I say New Mexico is also on my "must visit" list now.

[HappyWoman34]

I think it’s good that they’re getting a gun ban. I don’t like guns.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I don't like kids. We don't get to ban them.

[HappyWoman34]

@BoopBoopBeep lol

[Juxtapose]

Yeah and look at how that turned out for Australia.



You think that would have happened if they had guns?

[HappyWoman34]

Yes…

[Juxtapose]

If someone came to my home to compel me to undergo a specific medical treatment?

[HappyWoman34]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Jersey2]

What is everyone reading because to me thats just an incoherent word salad.

[Juxtapose]

You should work on your reading comprehension.

[Jersey2]

Its badly written.

[Juxtapose]

*It's

[Jersey2]

Thanks :)

I am reminded of a grammar nazi from my work past, meaning when I had to work, not the case anymore. She really wanted my job and felt that her knowledge of grammar was her strongest point against me… and it was. Unfortunately I would deliver $50 to $100 million a year to the company and her aspirations were seen as laughable.

[Mansearching]

I don't know much about what's going on in New Mexico. I don't know what new law actually says. So I can't comment.

[Chthou95]

Tyrannical bullshit. Banning guns is an infringement on people's rights to protect themselves

[PrettyGirlsAreMyKink]

I think she's an idiot who should be impeached, but not executed lmao

[OddBeMe]

Probably. But then again doesn’t that mean Obamacare should be accepted in every state?

[Juxtapose]

If it applies via supremacy clause then yes.

[Exterminatore]

Obamacare. That was a great deal. Instead of Medicare for all funded through taxes, which is how the media pitched it, we got “you must buy insurance and make big pharma richer or we take your tax return.”

Real great deal for Americans.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore but according to Jux, the supremacy clause means states HAVE to accepted it.

[Juxtapose]

Yes you do lol. There is no exemption for states to arbitrarily exempt themselves from the supremacy clause.

[Exterminatore]

The supremacy clause in the constitution states the constitution is the supreme law of the land and no states shall make any laws that nullify anything in the constitution.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore and yet Obamacare isn’t accepted in every state like mine. Why?

[Juxtapose]

Because people make unconstitutional bullshit up all the time Odd. Why do you think the Patriot Act is allowed to exist? It isn't because it's constitutional.

[OddBeMe]

If it’s not ruled on by SCOTUS, you can’t call it unconstitutional. It’s just your opinion. Literally written in the Constitution.

[Exterminatore]

@Odd

Listen, you’re of at least average intelligence and of at least average reading comprehension skills. You can read the Constitution for yourself and quickly learn why the Patriot Act is illegal. Secret courts where the plaintiff is not allowed to know the nature of whom his accusers are, court proceedings done in secret. Come on man.

And just because a judge may rule on whether something is Constitutional doesn’t mean their ruling is correct or not deliberately political. Almost half of states have very strict gun control laws and many require no permit to own and carry firearms, including concealed firearms. They’re called Constitutional carry states, for the reason they think the Constitution is your concealed carry and ownership permit.

Tell me then, which states are right? They both can’t be. Someone has it right and someone has it wrong. I’ll give you a hint to which are wrong. It’s the ones who can’t understand the clear and open sentence of: “shall not be infringed” connected to the right to keep and bear arms.

[Juxtapose]

Odd you don't need to be a genius to know that the Patriot Act is wildly unconstitutional. You can read the Constitution as well as any of us can I presume. You are dying on the hill of the appealing to authority logical fallacy.

@Exterminatore well said, completely agreed.

[Exterminatore]

@Jux

Thank you!

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore @Juxtapose
Wait guys…are you saying anything we disagree with can be called unconstitutional? It doesn’t need judicial review? I agree lots of things that are law probably unconstitutional, like Citizens United, but the actual constitution says scotus makes the decision.

And Citizens United, Patriots Act and Roe could be overturned by a SCOTUS decision in five years. We got some old ass judges like the scandalous black guy. Forgot his name.

[Juxtapose]

I don't need a damn court to tell me that the Patriot Act is VERY blatantly unconstitutional.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose and that’s what Hitler woulda said…

[Juxtapose]

[Exterminatore]

@0dd

Hang on. I gotta get a judge to interpret what you just said, because just like the Constitution it’s hard to understand. I mean it’s not plain and obvious to understand what you just said.

I need the word decision you said interpreted. I believe it means to decide if something is permitted or not permitted according to the Constitution. Or if it means we should interpret the Constitution itself.

Since I’m conservative I need a conservative judge to aid me in this so I can make sure the Constitution is viewed as to meaning what Conservative ideology states.

….. or we can not play word games and I can just understand it to mean what it obviously and plain sense.

Does this make sense? You understand the problem is the judges must leave their ideology out of their deciding if something is Constitutional or not. The Constitution is not to be abused in its meanings due to political ideology in assessing if something is Constitutional or not.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore and that’s what Hitler’s supporters would say.

[OddBeMe]

I’m sorry but I’m being serious. None of you are Hitler, ok?

But the Constitution literally says paraphrased in whatever clause: nothing is unconstitutional until it’s ruled on by SCOTUS. Duh, morons. You’re morons, but no Hitler. Loo

[OddBeMe]

Even Ted Bundy was called “alleged serial killer” before the trial confirmed it. Get it, moronic Hitlers?

[Juxtapose]

I don't know man, I might need a judge to interpret what you said. Let me get back to you on that.

[Exterminatore]

@odd

Dude. Lol

[JDavid25]

Whole heartedly agree with the comment..

[Jamie05rhs]

I would be careful what you're posting, bro.

[Juxtapose]

lol not really.

[Pterodon]

I agree