The Gun Sanctuary Movement Is Exploding

Amp Mangum

Amp Mangum

Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
3,214
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Conservatives have railed for years against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, criticizing localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies they deem heartless and ineffective. In the past year, however, some conservative lawmakers have taken a page from the progressive playbook, employing sanctuary imagery in opposition to gun safety legislation they deem to be an unconstitutional restriction of their rights under the Second Amendment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ment-gun-sanctuary-movement-constitution.html
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference between immigration and guns is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to pass laws to control immigration. They do not have to constitutional authority to infringe on our protected rights.

So gun sanctuaries, while they shouldn't be necessary, are a 10th amendment protected action. Immigration sanctuaries are not.
 
Chdamn said:
The biggest difference between immigration and guns is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to pass laws to control immigration. They do not have to constitutional authority to infringe on our protected rights.

So gun sanctuaries, while they shouldn't be necessary, are a 10th amendment protected action. Immigration sanctuaries are not.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. I would take that a step further and say they have a constitutional duty to uphold and protect those rights, not to just avoid infringing on them.
 
noway2 said:
Emphasis mine. I would take that a step further and say they have a constitutional duty to uphold and protect those rights, not to just avoid infringing on them.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Priority #1 for .gov should always be protection/preservation of the individual liberty of the citizens, because when that ceases to exist, the Republic ceases to exist. It is the cornerstone of our foundation. If it goes, she's coming down...roof, rafters and walls; all of it.

If .gov fails to do it, the responsibility falls upon the shoulders of those citizens who wish to remain free.
 
If you are a free citizen, you are your own 2nd amendment sanctuary, should you choose to be. That's where "the choice" has to be made; not in a town council, a meeting of county commissioners, a state legislature or even the halls of Congress.

The right is an individual right and although I applaud any level of .gov that stands firm on it, that stand is worthless without the backing of individual citizens who hold to, "This right is MINE; it's neither there for the taking nor will I willingly relinquish it."
 
Last edited:
OMG this thread is just too scary to even read. Going back to my safe space now. My mommy and daddy naught me a psychologist and a therapy dog and they are both there waiting for me. I’m only 32 years old, I shouldn’t have to be exposed to this kind of trauma
 
wsfiredude said:
Priority #1 for .gov should always be protection/preservation of the individual liberty of the citizens,
Click to expand...
What’s the line? Governments are instituted by men to preserve their rights? When they become contrary to this purpose the people have a duty to dissolve the binds.
 
MacEntyre said:
Since you are here, and you are fum C.Hill, you are either an honest troll, or you have first hand knowledge of the parody you make.
Click to expand...

my feelings are hurt. In telling my psychologist on you. And I hate the use of labels. I’m a. Non-binary, quantum pan-sexual neohipster. A troll, for those ignorant disrespectful jerks who insist on using labels, is someone who does butt stuff with their dogs using their mouthparts , like my best friend Barry, formerly Jane. Got that, mr right wing extremist? :)
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
If you are a free citizen, you are your own 2nd amendment sanctuary, should you choose to be. That's where "the choice" has to be made; not in a town council, a meeting of county commissioners, a state legislature or even the halls of Congress.

The right is an individual right and although I applaud any level of .gov that stands firm on it, that stand is worthless without the backing of individual citizens who hold to, "This right is MINE; it's neither there for the taking nor will I willingly relinquish it."
Click to expand...
The benefit I see here is a rally point, bringing like minded people together rather than singular individuals against the state. Now, it's potentially government against government if the local government has backing from it's constituents. But, that remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom