Gender
Male
About
Location
Lehigh Acres, FL
Do you agree to disagree without being disagreeable?
Yes
How did you hear about Patriot Command Center?
Email forward from Friend
Is America a republic?
I DO Agree --For MANY Reasons, and BEFORE 11/6/12! More POWER to Sheriff JOE!! -- He's now best Hope (perhaps the ONLY one, since the RNC has NO BACKBONE) -no hope for a felony conviction/Obama, pre-November. BUT if Obama IS ON BALLOT -- Heaven Help Us! -The ACORN & New Black Panther (Via Sosos' money) are certain to Steal Election... Buggered Ballot Counts, etc., PLEASE ENCOURAGE Sheriff Joe ... To HURRY! --Earl Bage (r/w `page'), Lehigh Acres, FL (WWII Army Artillery Vet) -- In God We Trust --
Activity Feed
For me personally I find this comparison to be very `Telling': i.e., [People who SUPPORT vs. OPPOSE ....Right ofa ountry's Citizens .... to Bear Arms] , for Instance: SUPPORTED -`Right to Bear…
Comment Wall
You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!
Comments are closed.
Comments
Ex Post Facto laws as they pertain to the 2nd Amendment was deduce or obfuscated during the Clinton administration, reason: The Lautenberg gun ban.
See: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/id39.htm
All “gun ban” “disqualified” that has been passed in 1968 to 1996 violates the rule of the law in the restriction clause: One Constitutional mandate is in ''Article One, Section Nine, Paragraph, 3., which states, ”No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed.'' Several cases involving bills of attainder have been adjudicated. Two distinct meanings of the phrase 'bill of attainder' have been established, one being a bill of attainder proper, which is a law permitting the death of a person, without a trial.
The other aspect of a bill of attainder is related to the aspect of the ''doctrine of pains and penalties.'' This type of mandate virtually strips or “disqualified” a citizen of rights, outlawing him, confiscating his property, and denying 'due process' under the law. In the words of Frederic Bastia, bills of attainder are, ''laws that plunder, life, liberty and property.'' (See; ''The Law, Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Education, 1996.) Too many laws today violate the premise of liberal democracy, and fall into the destructive category of being acts of ‘legalism.’ The destructive force of legalism was recognized hundreds of years before America became a Republic. Gun ban and the 1968-1996 gun “ban” falls within this destructive force acts of “legalism” on the Bill of Rights.
In Cummings v. Missouri (1867), states "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment." (Cited in the USC, as defining cases.) This includes the despicable Lautenberg gun ban 1996. The growing corruption in the legislature, and judiciary reflect a trend to base all American law upon the tyranny of 'Legalism.' The right of private property for the people to retain property above the right of the government to take it without permission has been systematically stripped from American rights.
thanks for your comments Earl!