Should TX gov Abbott prosecute Bill Clinton for BURNING ALIVE 85 americans at Waco?

[SmarterthanYou]

I guess you must have missed the part where they created 3 branches of government. It seems they were smarter than SmarterthanYou.

it seems that you're a fucking moron of the highest caliber, devoid of any common sense or ability to comprehend. I repeat, it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders created a limited government and then handed over the reigns to define their own limitations.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It was nearly 29 years ago that President Clinton SENT IN TANKS to burn alive the 85 Branch Davidians that he hated so much because they were christians and gun owners and white (mostly). In texas there is no SOL on murder or manslaughter so i say go for it. His crime was TELEVISED and there is no question of his guilt. This would also rid us of hillary.

Nyet, comrade.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

it seems that you're a fucking moron of the highest caliber, devoid of any common sense or ability to comprehend. I repeat, it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders created a limited government and then handed over the reigns to define their own limitations.

The founders recognized that if they allowed everyone to interpret the Constitution however they wanted to there would be chaos. They had to have one final authority that would be the ones that decided the meaning. Without that there would be a million SmarterthanYou's claiming they knew the Constitution when they clearly had never read it. They said the courts were that authority. But they didn't leave the court with the final say. Can you guess what can happen if the majority disagree with a court ruling on the meaning? Actually, you don't have to guess. You only need to read the Constitution.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The founders recognized that if they allowed everyone to interpret the Constitution however they wanted to there would be chaos. They had to have one final authority that would be the ones that decided the meaning. Without that there would be a million SmarterthanYou's claiming they knew the Constitution when they clearly had never read it. They said the courts were that authority. But they didn't leave the court with the final say. Can you guess what can happen if the majority disagree with a court ruling on the meaning? Actually, you don't have to guess. You only need to read the Constitution.

you fell for the establishment koolaid that you're not smart enough to understand the constitution. congratulations, moron.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

you fell for the establishment koolaid that you're not smart enough to understand the constitution. congratulations, moron.

Having a final authority on the meaning doesn't mean others can't read and understand it. It means that in order for the Constitution to work, there has to be a final say on it that can be accepted or if not accepted then overturned by an amendment. Your comments show you should rely on others that are smarter than SmarterthanYou. I think others that aren't SmarterthanYou but are smarter than you will recognize you have no argument but only name calling. You didn't address any of the points I raised.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Having a final authority on the meaning doesn't mean others can't read and understand it. It means that in order for the Constitution to work, there has to be a final say on it that can be accepted or if not accepted then overturned by an amendment. Your comments show you should rely on others that are smarter than SmarterthanYou. I think others that aren't SmarterthanYou but are smarter than you will recognize you have no argument but only name calling. You didn't address any of the points I raised.

so, based upon your argument, even though the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY says 'shall not be infringed' and every single piece of historical documentation from the framers before and after ratification state that the federal government has zero power over the arms of the people, you still accept the courts reasoning that 'shall not be infringed' really means 'reasonable restrictions'???????

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

so, based upon your argument, even though the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY says 'shall not be infringed' and every single piece of historical documentation from the framers before and after ratification state that the federal government has zero power over the arms of the people, you still accept the courts reasoning that 'shall not be infringed' really means 'reasonable restrictions'???????

Of course it means reasonable restrictions. If we accept that there can be no restrictions then one could use their guns to kill anyone they wanted to and the Constitution would not allow their guns to be taken away. Is it a reasonable restriction that murderers are not allowed to carry guns? Rights are always balanced against other rights. At what point does the right to own a gun interfere with other rights granted in the Constitution or that are inalienable? That is the balancing act that always has to be taken into account with any rights.

Unless you are willing to argue that murderers in jail should be allowed guns then you have already conceded that reasonable restrictions are allowed and we are only discussing which restrictions are reasonable.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course it means reasonable restrictions. If we accept that there can be no restrictions then one could use their guns to kill anyone they wanted to and the Constitution would not allow their guns to be taken away.

thats an extremely idiotic and hyperbolic bullshit argument. try again

Is it a reasonable restriction that murderers are not allowed to carry guns? Rights are always balanced against other rights. At what point does the right to own a gun interfere with other rights granted in the Constitution or that are inalienable? That is the balancing act that always has to be taken into account with any rights.

read above. those comments also apply to this argument

Unless you are willing to argue that murderers in jail should be allowed guns then you have already conceded that reasonable restrictions are allowed and we are only discussing which restrictions are reasonable.

same comments for this bullshit. do they teach you that bullshit at liberal universities?

seriously, it's like you morons have never actually read the constitution and how it was ratified. you just listen to establishment bullshit because they are the establishment

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

thats an extremely idiotic and hyperbolic bullshit argument. try again


read above. those comments also apply to this argument

same comments for this bullshit. do they teach you that bullshit at liberal universities?

seriously, it's like you morons have never actually read the constitution and how it was ratified. you just listen to establishment bullshit because they are the establishment

So you have no rebuttal? Gosh. Who would have thunk it that you would resort to name calling and diversionary tactics?

So, do you think the 2nd amendment means every person can own a gun even those convicted of murder? If you think murderers should not be allowed to have guns then you have agreed that some restrictions are reasonable.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you have no rebuttal? Gosh. Who would have thunk it that you would resort to name calling and diversionary tactics?

I see no beneficial purpose in trying to rebut such a ridiculous argument

So, do you think the 2nd amendment means every person can own a gun even those convicted of murder? If you think murderers should not be allowed to have guns then you have agreed that some restrictions are reasonable.

if they can't be trusted in public with a weapon, then they can't be trusted in public. once released from incarceration, they should be able to exercise ALL of their rights

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I see no beneficial purpose in trying to rebut such a ridiculous argument


if they can't be trusted in public with a weapon, then they can't be trusted in public. once released from incarceration, they should be able to exercise ALL of their rights

Do you think everyone should be allowed to have military grade weapons including heavy artillery?

If they can't be trusted in public with a weapon should they be allowed to have a weapon when incarcerated?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Do you think everyone should be allowed to have military grade weapons including heavy artillery?

the PEOPLE, who are supposed to be the rightful masters of this country, should have access to ANY weapon that the government would use against them

If they can't be trusted in public with a weapon should they be allowed to have a weapon when incarcerated?

read the 5th Amendment. people who have been incarcerated due to criminal activity can have their rights temporarily denied using due process of law.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Stupid tranny. Took me 5 seconds to get this link.

https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/sherman-convicted-his-own-words/mpWEHBs2mwcjbQceS3PHyH/

War is Hell

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

the PEOPLE, who are supposed to be the rightful masters of this country, should have access to ANY weapon that the government would use against them

So you think Joe down the street is entitled to own a nuclear weapon and can put in a missile silo if he desires?

read the 5th Amendment. people who have been incarcerated due to criminal activity can have their rights temporarily denied using due process of law.

The funny thing is I have read the fifth and it says nothing about having your first or second amendment rights taken away. Life, liberty, and property are the only things listed in the fifth. The court upon conviction can take a gun away if it is property but why can't someone who is convicted simply go get another one? To take that one away after a conviction would violate the fifth's double jeopardy prohibition. Either you can't read or you don't think owning a gun is a right. Which is it?

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Someone should advise the dick-breathed Opie Dopey TEXT DRIVER that it was the perverted child-molestor- David Koresh- that lit his own pants on fire that burned out his building with all of his people locked inside to die!

David Keresh is the murderer here!

We should have given Janet Reno a medal!

David Koresh a child molester??? Show us the videos. We have them on Pedodent Brandon.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

I guess you must have missed the part where they created 3 branches of government. It seems they were smarter than SmarterthanYou.

But not three EQUAL branches of govt. The judiciary was supposed to be the weak sister. That's why they are appointed not elected. The FF would be appalled at how the courts have made themselves the final word on every issue.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

The founders recognized that if they allowed everyone to interpret the Constitution however they wanted to there would be chaos. They had to have one final authority that would be the ones that decided the meaning. Without that there would be a million SmarterthanYou's claiming they knew the Constitution when they clearly had never read it. They said the courts were that authority. But they didn't leave the court with the final say. Can you guess what can happen if the majority disagree with a court ruling on the meaning? Actually, you don't have to guess. You only need to read the Constitution.

Where do you draw the line between interpreting the constitution and rewriting it.? Where does the constitution say anything about abortion or education? THINK

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

So, do you think the 2nd amendment means every person can own a gun even those convicted of murder? If you think murderers should not be allowed to have guns then you have agreed that some restrictions are reasonable.

We let convicted murderers drive cars even though americans do more killing with cars than guns.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you think Joe down the street is entitled to own a nuclear weapon and can put in a missile silo if he desires?

do you honestly think that the US Government would use a nuke on it's own population?

The funny thing is I have read the fifth and it says nothing about having your first or second amendment rights taken away. Life, liberty, and property are the only things listed in the fifth. The court upon conviction can take a gun away if it is property but why can't someone who is convicted simply go get another one? To take that one away after a conviction would violate the fifth's double jeopardy prohibition. Either you can't read or you don't think owning a gun is a right. Which is it?

what is a 'liberty'? it's a right, like your 2nd Amendment right. English comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school, was it?

 

[McRocket]

The only problem I have with how the feds handled it is how frigging long they took to send in the armored vehicles.

51 days?
At the cost of millions of dollars of taxpayers money?
And 76 people died anyway?
Failure.

After the ATF raid went horribly wrong?
Ship the necessary forces in to raid the place with armor (like the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles and M1 tanks used).
Then move in immediately.

You NEVER negotiate with terrorists...except to give your people time to set up better kill shots.
You try to save as many innocents as possible.
But number one is end the situation fast.

This makes other potential terrorists see the pointlessness of doing the same thing.