Hrricanes Lounge XLVII: The return to obeying Rhules

[Derailed75]

Without the affordable healthcare, housing and education

But with almost 60% of your income going to taxes. The US average once everything is figured in is around 27%. I feel like most people don't spend 30% of their income on medical bills.

 

[Derailed75]

Also while the wording in those articles is concerning I'll worry about it when someone actually acts on it.

 

[Borsig]

Easy way to get shot, I imagine. Pretty sure there was an amendment prohibiting exactly that, for whatever that's worth these days

Yet when I say the same about my firearms, I'm seen as an extemist.... Huh, thats interesting....

 

[Borsig]

This is the part that should be of real concern:



So now the police have free reign to search you, your car, your house, for whatever reason (or no reason at all), all without a warrant.

They can do this on the road side for "probable cause" Unlawful search and seizure, etc... But again, NOW it's an issue?


Is it OK for ATF agents to come knocking and demand legal things you bought because they "changed their interpretation?" Asking for a friend.

 

[Borsig]

The 4th amendment says you can't. The 2nd says you shouldn't. How long until someone kills an ICE agent?

How long until someone kills an ATF agent?

I'm really on board with you guys suddenly being proponents of the 2A in the way I have always been though. Welcome to the team?

 

[Borsig]

But with almost 60% of your income going to taxes. The US average once everything is figured in is around 27%. I feel like most people don't spend 30% of their income on medical bills.

Lets see. My healthcare after cutting it in half because my insurance won't pay for my wife's surgery any more becuase it's "cosmetic" (She has benign tumors that grow on her nerves and cause pain - its a genetic condition) has dropped from 900 to say, 550 a month for 2. X 12 months that's 6600 a year. Add to that the surgery we have scheduled in June, in Texas (specialist one of maybe 4 in the country who knows how to do electrodessication on nerufibromas and isn't a greedy POS) that's, 10750.00. Thats 17,350.00 Her monthly meds are about 50 (one of her scripts is called creon, its 1500 without is) so there's another 600. Let's call it 18k.

So 18k before dental and anything else that comes up and right now we both need a root canal and a crown. Call that another 3k? 20-21K already for us.

We're 66% of the way to 30% BEFORE taxes on my medical bills. Also I need shoulder surgery (have for 2 years) and I have a busted tendon in my foot, that needs fixed too.

So....

 

[Blueline Bomber]

How long until someone kills an ATF agent?

I'm really on board with you guys suddenly being proponents of the 2A in the way I have always been though. Welcome to the team?

Unless I’m mistaken, ATF agents need a warrant to enter your home, no?

Do you believe the 2A is the only one that matters or do you believe we should be concerned over the attempts to ignore the other amendments as well?

Because, as already stated, this one is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th. The administration has already attempted to override the 14th, and continues to push that agenda to the Supreme Court. And they’ve made it clear they’re not a fan of the 1st amendment either.

You’ve always been a big proponent of the 2A. Do you plan on exercising that right now that it actually might need to come into play? Or are you siding with the tyrants?

 

[Borsig]

Unless I’m mistaken, ATF agents need a warrant to enter your home, no?

Do you believe the 2A is the only one that matters or do you believe we should be concerned over the attempts to ignore the other amendments as well?

Because, as already stated, this one is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th. The administration has already attempted to override the 14th, and continues to push that agenda to the Supreme Court. And they’ve made it clear they’re not a fan of the 1st amendment either.

You’ve always been a big proponent of the 2A. Do you plan on exercising that right now that it actually might need to come into play? Or are you siding with the tyrants?

Seriously? I'm a proponent of the ENTIRE document.

I just find it amusing that when I have always said, that I see people like this as a legit threat, and threaten to use the same force they would use against me, in kind, I am an extemeist. But now it's a an option.

As to the ATF - You do know that they will come to your home and demand items you bought that they once considered legal but changed their "judgement" on. Care to know how I know this? Apparently thread adapters from company X, get you a letter and a visit and a demand to "surrender" said item, under threat of "return with warrant for it" even when you have a dozen from 1's and form 4's.

It's just ironic the shit I've been saying for years is now in play for another issue and people are wondering the same things. Does having a warrant even make it OK? Has it ever, when a corrput judge can issue a warrant and "deal with the legalites in court?"

A right delayed is a right denied. A right trampled, is deprivation of rights under color of law, and is punishable up to and including the death penalty. But we were okay doing it to Japanese americans during ww2 because 6 assholes in black robes said so (Korematsu v. United States). The biggest tyrant in US history spawned an amendment on presidential terms, and died in office an asshole king, having signed into order and law, the single biggest violation of constitutional rights since 3/5 a man and slavery.

No one is coming to save you. Not the document, not the law, not 9 statist assholes in black robes.

Welcome to the team. You'll start on the 4th line.

Just remember, that NON citizens arent protected by said document. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

EDIT: Actually, screw it. I don’t need to catch another temporary ban.

 

[To Be Determined]

Just remember, that NON citizens arent protected by said document. That's where I draw the line.

I've seen this a lot lately. if i'm the ATF, why don't i just declare you a non-citizen and take your no longer covered by the 2nd amendment firearms? (yeah, after the shootout.) what are you going to do, sue? you're a non-citizen now, you have no right to due process. the constitution isn't for you.

or do you think the government would never declare someone something they aren't, either malaciously or accidentally?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I've seen this a lot lately. if i'm the ATF, why don't i just declare you a non-citizen and take your no longer covered by the 2nd amendment firearms? (yeah, after the shootout.) what are you going to do, sue? you're a non-citizen now, you have no right to due process. the constitution isn't for you.

or do you think the government would never declare someone something they aren't, either malaciously or accidentally?

Actually, noncitizens have the right to due process. I don’t know why that belief is being spread (well, I DO know why), but it’s false.

 

[To Be Determined]

Actually, noncitizens have the right to due process. I don’t know why that belief is being spread (well, I DO know why), but it’s false.

oh, i agree that everyone has a right to due process. i've just seen a lot of people claiming they don't (or shouldn't) and i just don't get it.

i'm picturing someone with 100% absolute proof they are a citizen going to court, the other side saying something like, 'your honor we move for dismissal, (person) is clearly on the non-citizen list and has no standing' followed by 'dismissed.'

not a power i want the government to have.

 

[Borsig]

I've seen this a lot lately. if i'm the ATF, why don't i just declare you a non-citizen and take your no longer covered by the 2nd amendment firearms? (yeah, after the shootout.) what are you going to do, sue? you're a non-citizen now, you have no right to due process. the constitution isn't for you.

or do you think the government would never declare someone something they aren't, either malaciously or accidentally?

Because the ATF doesn't care if you're a citizen or not.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

oh, i agree that everyone has a right to due process. i've just seen a lot of people claiming they don't (or shouldn't) and i just don't get it.

i'm picturing someone with 100% absolute proof they are a citizen going to court, the other side saying something like, 'your honor we move for dismissal, (person) is clearly on the non-citizen list and has no standing' followed by 'dismissed.'

not a power i want the government to have.

Why do you think they want to get rid of birthright citizenship? I imagine that birthright citizenship applies to the majority of the US population (because why would those born a US citizen take a citizenship test). If they repeal it, suddenly 95% of the country are no longer citizens. And since they’ve made it clear they don’t believe noncitizens have rights…

 

[Borsig]

Why do you think they want to get rid of birthright citizenship? I imagine that birthright citizenship applies to the majority of the US population (because why would those born a US citizen take a citizenship test). If they repeal it, suddenly 95% of the country are no longer citizens. And since they’ve made it clear they don’t believe noncitizens have rights…

Because people come here 9 months pregnant to poop out a baby as an excuse to anchor themselves here.

 

[MinJaBen]

Because people come here 9 months pregnant to poop out a baby as an excuse to anchor themselves here.

Where do you draw the line then?

 

[Derailed75]

Lets see. My healthcare after cutting it in half because my insurance won't pay for my wife's surgery any more becuase it's "cosmetic" (She has benign tumors that grow on her nerves and cause pain - its a genetic condition) has dropped from 900 to say, 550 a month for 2. X 12 months that's 6600 a year. Add to that the surgery we have scheduled in June, in Texas (specialist one of maybe 4 in the country who knows how to do electrodessication on nerufibromas and isn't a greedy POS) that's, 10750.00. Thats 17,350.00 Her monthly meds are about 50 (one of her scripts is called creon, its 1500 without is) so there's another 600. Let's call it 18k.

So 18k before dental and anything else that comes up and right now we both need a root canal and a crown. Call that another 3k? 20-21K already for us.

We're 66% of the way to 30% BEFORE taxes on my medical bills. Also I need shoulder surgery (have for 2 years) and I have a busted tendon in my foot, that needs fixed too.

So....

Sorry to hear that. I get it medical is expensive but you and your wife are exceptions most people don't get remotely close to paying 30% of their income on medical expenses. Hell I had a heart attack in 2019 my total out of pocket was around 7 grand most years (not counting meds) I pay less than a grand. I turn 50 Tuesday so I'm sure I will be going more frequently and having higher cost procedures as I age, but as I said MOST people don't spend anywhere near 30% of their income

 

[To Be Determined]

Because people come here 9 months pregnant to poop out a baby as an excuse to anchor themselves here.

i mean, you feel like this should be reason enough to change the interpretation of the 14th amendment. some people feel like school shootings or whatever should be reason enough to change the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

and all amendments should and do have limitations enacted through law, and often struck down or upheld in courts. i don't think anyone, even if they fervently believe birthright citizenship should stop, should support changing the definition by executive order (not saying you are, just being general here) because if that gets normalized our rights will be up for election every four years. which is great when the executive orders line up with your beliefs, but gonna be painful when president aoc or whoever orders the 2A only applies to black-powder or something.

 

[cptjeff]

Actually, noncitizens have the right to due process. I don’t know why that belief is being spread (well, I DO know why), but it’s false.

Without due process, how do you actually know if the person you're arresting is even actually a non-citizen?


Also, not so friendly reminder:
KEEP IT CIVIL AND KEEP IT AWAY FROM PARTISAN POLITICS.
If we are discussing current events, historically the HF26 mods have allowed that. But there's a fine line, and we're right on that line right now. And if it gets out of hand and the admins come in from on high, we can't help you.

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Just remember, that NON citizens arent protected by said document. That's where I draw the line.

They are though, whether you're a fan of it or not.

If you genuinely think they don't, it makes your lack of legal expertise evident.

 

[Derailed75]

They are though, whether you're a fan of it or not.

If you genuinely think they don't, it makes your lack of legal expertise evident.

I think a case could be made that it doesn't, although I have no issues using the protection afforded citizens to visitors also.

Case would be that the preamble to the Constitution starts off with "We the people of the United States of America" that statement could be read to say that the following document pertains to the people or citizens of the US non citizen are not included.

Like I said as a great nation we should extend those beliefs on our visitors, right up until we know that they have broken our laws at that point we can get rid of them however we see fit.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I think a case could be made that it doesn't, although I have no issues using the protection afforded citizens to visitors also.

Case would be that the preamble to the Constitution starts off with "We the people of the United States of America" that statement could be read to say that the following document pertains to the people or citizens of the US non citizen are not included.

They've had multiple court cases clarifying that it does apply to noncitizens.

In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.1 In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.2

Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, [e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.5

 

[Navin R Slavin]

MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

--A Man For All Seasons, Robert Bolt

 

[Derailed75]

They've had multiple court cases clarifying that it does apply to noncitizens.

I'm never once mentioned or question what the Supreme court has decided in the past (they have been known to misinterpret things from time to time) just how the document itself could actually have been read and understood.

 

[Ole Gil]

Actually, noncitizens have the right to due process. I don’t know why that belief is being spread (well, I DO know why), but it’s false.

I imagine this is where the belief is coming from. Expedited Removals (created in 1996) bypasses some of the due process protections of non-citizens in the deportation process for the first 2 years they're in the country.

• DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020): The Supreme Court upheld the statute limiting judicial review of expedited removal orders, finding it did not violate the Suspension Clause or the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as aliens seeking initial entry have limited due process protections.

The 'seeking initial entry' seems to be the differentiating factor. And 2 years is the window for expedited removals.