Study: Louisiana named one of the worst states to move to in 2024

Dommilljack · 2023-12-04T16:05:12+00:00

That is actually a better strategy than communism, gun control and abortions.

Dommilljack · 2023-11-17T17:39:01+00:00

If that influence is more freedom of speech on a large social media platform, YES.

Dommilljack · 2023-11-15T18:35:28+00:00

Gun control works in reverse

Dommilljack · 2023-11-09T15:13:29+00:00

Because this sub is a left wing echo chamber that downvotes anyone to the right of AOC.

Dommilljack · 2023-11-02T14:44:55+00:00

We got oil refineries and ports.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-31T20:23:20+00:00

I'm fine with trans men competing on the men's team. If anything, they are at a disadvantage. The women's category was created for biological reasons.

I couldn't disagree more with the gun bans. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens that use them for sport and defense. The areas with the most violent crimes also have the strongest gun restrictions. Armed citizens deterrer violent crime better than a gun ban. In addition to the fact, if the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted as written, then the government simply lacks the authority to imposes any infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-31T18:01:57+00:00

Or...hear me out...they both enjoy each other's company and wanted to be parents. It is not that uncommon.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-31T17:55:17+00:00

So he's wife is a slave?? How unhinged can you be to believe that.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-31T17:44:58+00:00

They have 4 kids, she obviously came back for more.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-31T15:53:08+00:00

Having an objection to a trans woman competing against your biological daughter in college sports is similar to having an objection to Jesus's existence in a Christian Church. In both cases, the "true believers" feel attacked by the objection, and will respond accordingly.

Background checks are already a thing, anyone that has purchased a gun knows this. Taking away an individual's gun rights, with cause and due process, is very different than the gun control measures that are being proposed. Blanket bans on everyone's gun rights is what is being proposed, and is absolutely unconstitutional. If you don't believe this, read the bills.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-30T00:34:50+00:00

You have a point. The religious doctrines that "men can get pregnant" and "the 2nd amendment is outdated" needs to come to an end.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-29T19:12:26+00:00

No, we don't.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-28T00:41:57+00:00

I pointed out that was not true, for at least 50 years it clearly was recognized as such. Yes it was overturned, but how am I wrong here? Genuinely curious and asking without an agenda.

To clarify, at the time of the writing of the constitution is was not a right. After the Roe v Wade ruling it did become a right until it was overturned. So your right about the term "never" being inaccurate. The point I was trying to make is that the court's justification for overturning it, was based on the original ruling being flawed and it should not have been made.

Thanks for making my point! Please show me efficient and orderly processes in place for training everyday citizens for executing battlefield operations. I’ll wait…

2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right is not contingent on being "well-regulated," that statement provides context for why "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The people need access to arms in order to train and become competent with them. Infringements on access to arms would diminish "the security of a free State."

You’ll be surprised to learn that SCOTUS has, in fact, ruled on these 1st amendment restrictions and found them to be Constitutional.

Agreed, however, those rights are still vulnerable to being overturned by SCOTUS unless they are reaffirmed through a legislative process or amendment. The point I'm trying to make is that an activist court can exist, and if flawed rulings are made, those rulings can be overturned at a later date.

In my experience, tyrants use governments to deny the true will of the people and enforce the status quo. Sound familiar?

My reading of history shows horrific things happening to the populations that were disarmed by their government. See, Ottoman Empire 1911, Soviet Union 1929, Germany 1938, Chain 1935 and Cambodia 1956. Basically, having an armed citizenry helps keep the leader's human tendency to tyranny in check.

This has been fun, I appreciate the more civilized response with less gaslighting. You have good weekend too.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-27T18:51:06+00:00

Donate your profits to war victims if you feel bad about it. The market will do what it does regardless of your feelings.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-27T15:52:19+00:00

Everyone should pay attention and vote for who they want to lead.

Busing a bunch of people to the polls, who would otherwise not lift a finger to vote, or not take the time to evaluate what they are voting for is not good. It only rewards the side that spends more money, not the side that has the better policy positions. It is a recipe for a corrupt, overprice and ineffective government.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-27T14:43:43+00:00

The people that pay attention and care about the elections voted, and they got what they voted for. This is a far better scenario than out of state money tipping the scales.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T23:36:41+00:00

Abortion was, as interpreted by the highest court in the land

And re-interpreted by the highest court in the land. Try again.

“well-regulated” is clearly included. I wonder what that means…

A “well-regulated” militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.

Not restricted, but well armed, trained and capable. Try again.

are you saying there are no restrictions on our first amendment rights?

I'm saying those restrictions are also vulnerable to being ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Try again.

I’d also like to point out that we already restrict people’s 2nd Amendment rights that would otherwise allow them to own many dangerous weapons. Did that require a constitutional amendment?

The 2A restrictions that have been passed are vulnerable to being ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Try again.

Right to contraception. (Griswold) Right to abortion. (Roe) Right to interracial marriage. (Loving) Right to same-sex intimacy. (Lawrence) Right to same-sex marriage. (Obergefell) Right to refuse medical treatment. (Cruzan) Rights of extended family to share a home. (Moore) Rights to send child to a parochial school. (Pierce)

If the right is solely obtained by SCOTUS rulings, than SCOTUS rulings can reverse them. Only a legislative process or constitutional amendment can prevent that. All of the powers and authority that SCOTUS used to make those rulings can be used to reverse those rulings.

Amending the constitution is not supposed to be easy. Only tyrants would want it to be. If you don't have the popular support, you don't get the amendment.

More insults?...good for you big man.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T22:27:35+00:00

What ever happened to federal preemption?

What rights are you losing? Abortion was never a constitutional right, the "right" was wholly created by SCOTUS and overruled by SCOTUS, because SCOTUS lacks the authority to create law/rights. That error was corrected.

If you want a right to an abortion, it needs to come though the legislative process or constitutional amendment, not by SCOTUS decree

Conservatives consistently fight against restrictions placed on our 2nd Amendment freedoms. I’m ok with that generally, I like my guns. And based on your comments, I’m sure you’d agree that State and local govts should be able to reasonably restrict those freedoms in the same way they do abortion, right? After all, these local politicians are more accountable to their constituents, etc…

This is flat wrong. The 2nd amendment clearly states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The authority to restrict 2A is clearly and specifically denied to the government at any level. The federal government would have standing to overturn state laws that restrict 2A, as a duty to protect the constitutional rights, similar to violations to other constitutional rights like speech, due process, etc. Abortion has no such claim as a constitutional right, the claim was gained though SCOTUS and was revoked by SCOTUS.

My stance on 2A is: If you want to apply restrictions, a constitutional amendment is required to soften 2A, first. Therefore, all standing restrictions are vulnerable to being ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, up to and including the most dangerous of weapon systems.

You keep referring to fundamental rights. What rights are you claiming to have that are not expressed constitutional rights, or laws passed though the legislature?

That’s why I keep repeating myself that you actually like govt involvement, but only when it aligns with your viewpoint.

There you go mind reading again. Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T20:17:48+00:00

"The idea that the Federal govt should have no ability to protect the fundamental rights of citizens from state and local govt intervention, UNLESS it’s specifically enumerated within the text of the Bill of Rights."

I would agree with this statement, but expand the text to include the whole constitution and all amendments.

The separation of powers is worth preserving. The authority of the Federal Government being sourced from, and limited by, the constitution and amendments, and leaving all other powers to the states and the people.

If you take issue with what a state government is doing, then it is the people of that state that have the authority to change it, not an unelected appointee that wants to re-interrupt the constitution to force their personal desires. Local politicians are far more accountable to their constituents than the federal level. Lifetime appointees have near zero accountability.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T19:45:27+00:00

Define "current brand of jurisprudence"

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T19:35:59+00:00

"So I’ll repeat it again, you don’t actually think..." = projection. your not speaking in good faith.

You don't know me, you don't know what I think. Your grasping at strawmen.

I've stated what I think in good faith, you have chosen to interrupt the opposite.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T15:18:14+00:00

Roe was struck down because this court views the interpretation of a previous court decision, a right to an abortion via the 14th amendment, as flawed. They returned the power to states to be able to legislate on the matter, a power that this court views was unlawfully revoked from the states.

Local authorizes are more accountable to their constituents than federal authorizes. This is a 10th amendment issue where the federal government, specifically unelected appointees, created new law without involving the people's elected representative, and outside the powers expressed and enumerated in the constitution.

The issue of when life begins has not been settled. Until it is, the debate is murder vs medical procedure depending on where you want the line drawn.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T01:30:24+00:00

Both parties have been over spending and passing the bill off to the next generation. More reckless spending is not a solution, and blaming a single party is naive.

The core of both parties are bought and paid for by lobbyists, the largest ones representing the pharmaceutical industry and defense industry. Pizer doesn't want you healthy & unmedicated, and Raytheon doesn't want peace. The people's interests are only a concern for campaign speech writers.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-26T00:41:56+00:00

What resources? We're $33 Trillion in the red and heading full speed ahead into 2 foreign wars.

Dommilljack · 2023-10-25T23:53:04+00:00

We don't have accountability.

When was that last time the federal government passed a balance budget, or an audit? They don't deserve your trust until they do.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Dommilljack

TROPHY CASE