| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:50:22 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,623 |
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the legal citizens of the US.
We are truly in a "war" of sorts
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase "threat to democracy"
yet they don't care about the Constitution
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump
-admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the
legal citizens of the US.
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was
encouraged by the previous administration.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or objecting
simply because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase
"threat to democracy" yet they don't care about the Constitution and
the only threat they care about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they
are squawking about. Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz
words. And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth
behind the left and democrats motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the legal >citizens of the US.
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was encouraged by the
previous administration.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or objecting simply >because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase "threat to democracy"
yet they don't care about the Constitution and the only threat they care >about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they are squawking about.
Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz words.
And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth behind the left and democrats
motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
The problem for the left wing media is that nobody is listening or believing their
lies any more.
They have been uncloaked.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in >news:10c1oge$la0a$3@pothead.dont-email.me:
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump >>>>>> -admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the
legal citizens of the US.
From what?
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was
encouraged by the previous administration.
And invasion - of people doing the
crap jobs that Americans won't touch.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or objecting
simply because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase
"threat to democracy" yet they don't care about the Constitution and
the only threat they care about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they
are squawking about. Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz
words. And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth
behind the left and democrats motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
What Fox News isn't covering:
Farms are closing without workers. US border
policy threatens to empty shelves.
October 5, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/vaernc94
TrumpAs immigration raids leave crops rotting in the field
Sept 14 2025
https://tinyurl.com/j3fbwdjf
U.S. companies shed 32,000 jobs in September in
latest sign of labor market weakness
Oct 1 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3fhpvhtn
Farm Bankruptcies Soaring in 2025
Oct 2 2025
https://www.sfntoday.com/2025/10/02/78931/
Home Foreclosures Soar Nationwide
AUGUST 18, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/323u3vkz
Federal budget deficit grows $92B to nearly $2T
Sept 12 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3ddz7yss
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin
istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Case in point from the guvnah's sig:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Too bad the current Supreme Court doesn't recognize this
amendment.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 02:04:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noeail@aol.com>trump
wrote:
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in >>news:10c1oge$la0a$3@pothead.dont-email.me:
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-
objecting-admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the
legal citizens of the US.
From what?
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was
encouraged by the previous administration.
And invasion - of people doing the
crap jobs that Americans won't touch.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or
simply because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase
"threat to democracy" yet they don't care about the Constitution and
the only threat they care about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they
are squawking about. Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz
words. And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth
behind the left and democrats motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
What Fox News isn't covering:
Farms are closing without workers. US border
policy threatens to empty shelves.
October 5, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/vaernc94
TrumpAs immigration raids leave crops rotting in the field
Sept 14 2025
https://tinyurl.com/j3fbwdjf
U.S. companies shed 32,000 jobs in September in
latest sign of labor market weakness
Oct 1 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3fhpvhtn
Farm Bankruptcies Soaring in 2025
Oct 2 2025
https://www.sfntoday.com/2025/10/02/78931/
Home Foreclosures Soar Nationwide
AUGUST 18, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/323u3vkz
Federal budget deficit grows $92B to nearly $2T
Sept 12 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3ddz7yss
Leftist misinformation abounds. Hollowhead soaks it in like a dry
sponge
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
The Democrats want the illegals to remain
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 06:40:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley
K. Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-tru >>>>>>> mp-admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Case in point from the guvnah's sig:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Too bad the current Supreme Court doesn't recognize this
amendment.
It doesn't apply to illegals.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, >>>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >>>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >news:p8v9ekhdvhaiu6alpnrrdh0dnrm4vlatms@4ax.com:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 06:40:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley
K. Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-tru >>>>>>>> mp-admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Case in point from the guvnah's sig:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Too bad the current Supreme Court doesn't recognize this
amendment.
It doesn't apply to illegals.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) ><http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, >>>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:15:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:p8v9ekhdvhaiu6alpnrrdh0dnrm4vlatms@4ax.com:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 06:40:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley >>>>>>>> K. Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard >>>>>>>>> | to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-tru >>>>>>>>> mp-admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Case in point from the guvnah's sig:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be >>>>> seized.
Too bad the current Supreme Court doesn't recognize this
amendment.
It doesn't apply to illegals.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
Hollowhead confuses the Fifth Amendment with the Fourth Amendment.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 06:40:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:00:36 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin
istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Pity his interest is in destroying it.
Case in point from the guvnah's sig:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Too bad the current Supreme Court doesn't recognize this
amendment.
It doesn't apply to illegals.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 02:04:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noeail@aol.com>
wrote:
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:10c1oge$la0a$3@pothead.dont-email.me:
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K. >>>>>> Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump >>>>>>> -admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the
legal citizens of the US.
From what?
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was
encouraged by the previous administration.
And invasion - of people doing the
crap jobs that Americans won't touch.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or objecting
simply because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase
"threat to democracy" yet they don't care about the Constitution and
the only threat they care about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they
are squawking about. Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz
words. And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth
behind the left and democrats motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
What Fox News isn't covering:
Farms are closing without workers. US border
policy threatens to empty shelves.
October 5, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/vaernc94
TrumprCOs immigration raids leave crops rotting in the field
Sept 14 2025
https://tinyurl.com/j3fbwdjf
U.S. companies shed 32,000 jobs in September in
latest sign of labor market weakness
Oct 1 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3fhpvhtn
Farm Bankruptcies Soaring in 2025
Oct 2 2025
https://www.sfntoday.com/2025/10/02/78931/
Home Foreclosures Soar Nationwide
AUGUST 18, 2025
https://tinyurl.com/323u3vkz
Federal budget deficit grows $92B to nearly $2T
Sept 12 2025
https://tinyurl.com/3ddz7yss
Leftist misinformation abounds.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, >>>>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >>>>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, >>>>>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not >>>>>be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >>>>>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
"The right of the PEOPLE...."
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in >news:10c1oge$la0a$3@pothead.dont-email.me:
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump >>>>>> -admin istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
--bks
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the
legal citizens of the US.
From what?
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
sentence on Osama.
Now you are just being silly.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>particularly
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>particularly
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
...
<LOL> Hollowhead thinks he knows what the Founding Fathers would have done....
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>particularly
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
Only for the term "People" as used in the Constitution, you pathetic
moron.
Dishonestly taking a person's words out of context is a common leftist tactic. They don't do much of anything honestly.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally,
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
<LOL> Hollowhead thinks he knows what the Founding Fathers would have done....
On 10/7/2025 10:58 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
"do non-citizens have a right to arms under the second amendment"
AI Overview
Whether non-citizens have a Second Amendment right to arms is an unsettled
legal question, but federal law prohibits them from possessing firearms
unless they meet specific exceptions. The Supreme Court has never directly
ruled on this issue, leaving it to a conflict among federal appeals courts.
Some circuits, such as the Fifth and Eighth, rule that "the people" protected
by the Second Amendment does not include unlawful aliens, while others, like
the Seventh, have found that undocumented immigrants with significant ties to
the U.S. are covered.
So you don't know if aliens have a right to arms or not, you stupid fuckstick.
It's not a settled question.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
No, FuckStick, that's false.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
The Supreme Court has *expressly* ruled that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth
amendments apply to *everyone* present in the country, you stupid fuckstick.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
No. You're just fucking wrong, as always.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:04:30 -0700, DoD <danskisanjar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/2025 10:58 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
"do non-citizens have a right to arms under the second amendment"
AI Overview
Whether non-citizens have a Second Amendment right to arms is an unsettled
legal question, but federal law prohibits them from possessing firearms >> unless they meet specific exceptions. The Supreme Court has never directly
ruled on this issue, leaving it to a conflict among federal appeals courts.
Some circuits, such as the Fifth and Eighth, rule that "the people" protected
by the Second Amendment does not include unlawful aliens, while others, like
the Seventh, have found that undocumented immigrants with significant ties to
the U.S. are covered.
So you don't know if aliens have a right to arms or not, you stupid fuckstick.
It's not a settled question.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
No, FuckStick, that's false.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
The Supreme Court has *expressly* ruled that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth
amendments apply to *everyone* present in the country, you stupid fuckstick. >>
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
No. You're just fucking wrong, as always.
Your AI is full of shit:
See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) for details
On 10/8/2025 8:25 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:04:30 -0700, DoD <danskisanjar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/2025 10:58 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
"do non-citizens have a right to arms under the second amendment"
AI Overview
Whether non-citizens have a Second Amendment right to arms is an unsettled
legal question, but federal law prohibits them from possessing firearms >>> unless they meet specific exceptions. The Supreme Court has never directly
ruled on this issue, leaving it to a conflict among federal appeals courts.
Some circuits, such as the Fifth and Eighth, rule that "the people" protected
by the Second Amendment does not include unlawful aliens, while others, like
the Seventh, have found that undocumented immigrants with significant ties to
the U.S. are covered.
So you don't know if aliens have a right to arms or not, you stupid fuckstick.
It's not a settled question.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more >>>>>> than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
No, FuckStick, that's false.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
The Supreme Court has *expressly* ruled that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth
amendments apply to *everyone* present in the country, you stupid fuckstick.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
No. You're just fucking wrong, as always.
Your AI is full of shit:
See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) for details
That's *one*, you stupid fuckstick. *All* of the first eight amendments, except
the second, apply *fully* to everyone in the country, and the applicability of
the second amendment is an open question, as there are conflicting opinions >among the courts of appeal, and no conclusion from the Supreme Court.
You're so fucking stupid.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:27:54 -0700, DoD <danskisanjar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 8:25 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:04:30 -0700, DoD <danskisanjar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/2025 10:58 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly >>>>>>>>>>>> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
"do non-citizens have a right to arms under the second amendment"
AI Overview
Whether non-citizens have a Second Amendment right to arms is an unsettled
legal question, but federal law prohibits them from possessing firearms
unless they meet specific exceptions. The Supreme Court has never directly
ruled on this issue, leaving it to a conflict among federal appeals courts.
Some circuits, such as the Fifth and Eighth, rule that "the people" protected
by the Second Amendment does not include unlawful aliens, while others, like
the Seventh, have found that undocumented immigrants with significant ties to
the U.S. are covered.
So you don't know if aliens have a right to arms or not, you stupid fuckstick.
It's not a settled question.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more >>>>>>> than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
No, FuckStick, that's false.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in >>>>> the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the >>>>> people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
The Supreme Court has *expressly* ruled that the first, fourth, fifth and sixth
amendments apply to *everyone* present in the country, you stupid fuckstick.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
No. You're just fucking wrong, as always.
Your AI is full of shit:
See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) for details
That's *one*, you stupid fuckstick. *All* of the first eight amendments, except
the second, apply *fully* to everyone in the country, and the applicability of
the second amendment is an open question, as there are conflicting opinions >> among the courts of appeal, and no conclusion from the Supreme Court.
You're so fucking stupid.
Undocumented opinions abound on Usenet.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bearGun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
arms?
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
All people are citizens, no?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than >not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a >definitive conclusion.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
The whole reason--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Guantanamo prison exists is because it's territory the US controls but
ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>particularly
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing more
than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of the
people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
On 10/8/2025 5:59 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holmanparticularly
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches >>>>>>>>>> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall >>>>>>>>>> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and
bear arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing
more than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
Not all people present in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of
the people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the
BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
The meaning of "people" in the Constitution is ambiguous. In the
preamble, the use of "people" in the opening clause *clearly* means
citizens. The Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, and
only citizens have the right to vote for state legislators.
Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> wrote in >news:XExFQ.5942$DOhc.783@fx06.iad:
On 10/8/2025 5:59 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holmanparticularly
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches >>>>>>>>>>> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall >>>>>>>>>>> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and
bear arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing
more than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
Not all people present in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be in
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of
the people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the
BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
The meaning of "people" in the Constitution is ambiguous. In the
preamble, the use of "people" in the opening clause *clearly* means
citizens. The Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, and
only citizens have the right to vote for state legislators.
In 1789 who was a "citizen"?
Every adult at the time had been
born a British subject. Hamilton had
been born on Nevis, an island in the
Caribbean. The country was teeming
with recent arrivals from France
and Prussia and Tuscany and Denmark
and Bavaria. All citizens?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
sentence on Osama.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
The whole reason
Guantanamo prison exists is because it's territory the US controls but
ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot. >>>>
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full
protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
In what ruling
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:05:11 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for
them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
Nope
See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) for details
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
sentence on Osama.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2The whole reason
Guantanamo prison exists is because it's territory the US controls but
ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot. >>>>>
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full
protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
In what ruling
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat >non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings.
Mathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to >constitutional protections.
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>particularly
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:29 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>> sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
He was replyng to my post about Osama.
It's not uncommon for liberals to be confused about what they're
talking about.
The whole reason
Guantanamo prison exists is because it's territory the US controls but >>>> ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:43 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot. >>>>>>
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>>> protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
In what ruling
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat
non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Nope, the fifth does not address the issue of illegal non-citizens.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings.
Due process isn't the issue.
Mathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to
constitutional protections.
...and yet they are denied the right to keep and bear arms.
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Due process isn't the issue.
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
<LOL> No, it does no such thing
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
<LOL> Lots of laws are not in the Constitution
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons ><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and >>>particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing
firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
On 10/8/2025 1:24 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:29 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>>> sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
He was replyng to my post about Osama.
Doesn't matter to whose post he was replying, Dummy. He was replying to *this*
earlier comment by your superior and better, Holman:
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
That's the point to which he was replying, Dummy, because Noriega *was* brought
to the U.S., alive, where he enjoyed all constitutional rights.
Why do you work so hard at being stupid, Dummy?
It's not uncommon for liberals to be confused about what they're
talking about.
On 10/8/2025 1:37 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:43 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>>> arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot. >>>>>>>
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>>>> protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
In what ruling
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat
non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Nope, the fifth does not address the issue of illegal non-citizens.
Unlawfully present aliens get due process, Dummy.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:Due process isn't the issue.
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings. >>
It is the issue, Dummy.
Mathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to
constitutional protections.
...and yet they are denied the right to keep and bear arms.
You haven't shown that, Dummy. Forget that law. It isn't the Constitution.
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
<LOL> No, it does no such thing
That's exactly what it did, Dummy.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
<LOL> Lots of laws are not in the Constitution
Lots of laws are chucked out because they violate the Constitution, Dummy. What
a fuckwit you are!
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:particularly
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>> be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing
firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 -o-a922
(a) It shall be unlawfulrCo
(1) for any personrCo
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienrCo
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:56:12 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:24 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:29 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>>>> sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
He was replyng to my post about Osama.
Doesn't matter to whose post he was replying, Dummy. He was replying to *this*
earlier comment by your superior and better, Holman:
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
That's the point to which he was replying, Dummy, because Noriega *was* brought
to the U.S., alive, where he enjoyed all constitutional rights.
Why do you work so hard at being stupid, Dummy?
It's not uncommon for liberals to be confused about what they're
talking about.
I believe it's a good idea to post your reply to something in the post
where the something existed.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:58:11 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:37 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:43 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:In what ruling
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>>>> arms?
Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>>>>> protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens. >>>>>
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat >>>> non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Nope, the fifth does not address the issue of illegal non-citizens.
Unlawfully present aliens get due process, Dummy.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Mathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to
constitutional protections.
...and yet they are denied the right to keep and bear arms.
You haven't shown that, Dummy. Forget that law. It isn't the Constitution.
Do you disregard any law that isn't in the Constitution? How is that
working for you?
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
<LOL> No, it does no such thing
That's exactly what it did, Dummy.
If you can't show where it does that
The point is the law doesn't state what the right to arms is.The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
<LOL> Lots of laws are not in the Constitution
Lots of laws are chucked out because they violate the Constitution, Dummy. What
a fuckwit you are!
Let me know when that law is chucked out.
On 10/8/2025 3:27 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:56:12 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:24 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:29 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>>>>> sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
He was replyng to my post about Osama.
Doesn't matter to whose post he was replying, Dummy. He was replying to *this*
earlier comment by your superior and better, Holman:
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
That's the point to which he was replying, Dummy, because Noriega *was* brought
to the U.S., alive, where he enjoyed all constitutional rights.
Why do you work so hard at being stupid, Dummy?
It's not uncommon for liberals to be confused about what they're
talking about.
Swill was not confused.
I believe it's a good idea to post your reply to something in the post
where the something existed.
He did, Dummy. Holman's comment was contained in your post, above your own >stupid comment.
On 10/8/2025 3:33 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:58:11 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:37 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:43 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:In what ruling
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>>>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>>>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>>>>>> protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens. >>>>>>
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat >>>>> non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Nope, the fifth does not address the issue of illegal non-citizens.
Unlawfully present aliens get due process, Dummy.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Do you disregard any law that isn't in the Constitution? How is thatMathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to >>>>> constitutional protections.
...and yet they are denied the right to keep and bear arms.
You haven't shown that, Dummy. Forget that law. It isn't the Constitution. >>
working for you?
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
<LOL> No, it does no such thing
That's exactly what it did, Dummy.
If you can't show where it does that
You stupid fuck:
Zadvydas v. Davis
(b) Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206uin which an
alien was indefinitely detained as he attempted to reenter the countryudoes
not support the GovernmentAs argument that alien status itself can justify
indefinite detention. Once an alien enters the country, the legal
circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons
within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-7791.ZS.html
Zadvydas v. Davis was about an alien who was indefinitely detained *when >entering* the U.S. The court ruled that, once in the country, whether lawfully
or not, *all* persons, including aliens, are to be afforded due process.
You lose.
The point is the law doesn't state what the right to arms is.The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
<LOL> Lots of laws are not in the Constitution
Lots of laws are chucked out because they violate the Constitution, Dummy. What
a fuckwit you are!
Let me know when that law is chucked out.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:41:54 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 3:27 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:56:12 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:24 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:29 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:43 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
"The right of the PEOPLE...."Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>>>>>> sentence on Osama.
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
You miss everything of importance, BlueBitch, including the fact that Swill was
talking about Manuel Noriega, not bin Laden.
He was replyng to my post about Osama.
Doesn't matter to whose post he was replying, Dummy. He was replying to *this*
earlier comment by your superior and better, Holman:
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.
That's the point to which he was replying, Dummy, because Noriega *was* brought
to the U.S., alive, where he enjoyed all constitutional rights.
Why do you work so hard at being stupid, Dummy?
It's not uncommon for liberals to be confused about what they're
talking about.
Swill was not confused.
I believe it's a good idea to post your reply to something in the post
where the something existed.
He did, Dummy. Holman's comment was contained in your post, above your own >> stupid comment.
Better check that again.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:48:41 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 3:33 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:58:11 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 1:37 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:58:43 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:39 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 10/8/2025 10:05 AM, Governor Swill wrote:In what ruling
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:25:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:40:37 -0400, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?Gun distribution is barely tracable anyway. Just makes it easy for >>>>>>>>>>> them to keep and bear. You arrest and disarm the illegal on the spot.
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>>>>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>>>>>>> protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens. >>>>>>>
You get it for the fifth amendment only. For the rest, get off your fat >>>>>> non-bicycling ass and look for it yourself.
Nope, the fifth does not address the issue of illegal non-citizens.
Unlawfully present aliens get due process, Dummy.
Key Supreme Court Rulings:
Shaughnessy v. Mezei
(1953): This case established that aliens who had once passed through the U.S.
gates, even illegally, were entitled to due process in removal proceedings.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Do you disregard any law that isn't in the Constitution? How is thatMathews v. Diaz
(1976): The Court clarified that even a person's presence in the country being
unlawful, involuntary, or transitory does not forfeit their right to >>>>>> constitutional protections.
...and yet they are denied the right to keep and bear arms.
You haven't shown that, Dummy. Forget that law. It isn't the Constitution. >>>
working for you?
Reno v. Flores
(1993): Justice Scalia wrote that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due
process of law, a right to a fair trial in immigration court and the ability to
challenge evidence against them.
Due process isn't the issue.
It is the issue, Dummy.
Illegals get the due process they are entitled to, so it's not an
issue
Zadvydas v. Davis
(2001): This ruling reiterated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies
to all people within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence
is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
<LOL> No, it does no such thing
That's exactly what it did, Dummy.
If you can't show where it does that
You stupid fuck:
Zadvydas v. Davis
(b) Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206rCoin which an
alien was indefinitely detained as he attempted to reenter the countryrCodoes
not support the GovernmentrCOs argument that alien status itself can justify
indefinite detention. Once an alien enters the country, the legal
circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons >> within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-7791.ZS.html
Zadvydas v. Davis was about an alien who was indefinitely detained *when
entering* the U.S. The court ruled that, once in the country, whether lawfully
or not, *all* persons, including aliens, are to be afforded due process.
You lose.
Nope..
The point is the law doesn't state what the right to arms is.The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
It's law.
It's not the Constitution.
<LOL> Lots of laws are not in the Constitution
Lots of laws are chucked out because they violate the Constitution, Dummy. What
a fuckwit you are!
Let me know when that law is chucked out.
No,
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than >not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a >definitive conclusion.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full
protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
All "persons".
Think about the difference.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons >><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and >>>>particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing >>firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 oa922
(a) It shall be unlawfulu
(1) for any personu
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienu
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people,"
demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does
not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full >>protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
All "persons".
Think about the difference.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:34:32 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:18:49 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "we, the illegal people," >>>>> demonstrating that the word "People" as used in the Constitution does >>>>> not necessarily mean "everyone in the country."
That, like it or not, is subject to intepretation.
The Supreme Court has held that all persons in the U.S. enjoy the full
protection of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. More likely than
not, the third, seventh and eighth amendments also apply to aliens.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the second amendment
to aliens. Lower appellate courts have issued conflicting decisions. Unless and
until the Supreme Court takes a case to decide the matter, we will not have a
definitive conclusion.
All "persons".
Except illegals
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:46:44 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:<snip>
Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> wrote
The meaning of "people" in the Constitution is ambiguous. In the
preamble, the use of "people" in the opening clause *clearly* means
citizens. The Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, and
only citizens have the right to vote for state legislators.
In 1789 who was a "citizen"?
Every adult at the time had been
born a British subject. Hamilton had
been born on Nevis, an island in the
Caribbean. The country was teeming
with recent arrivals from France
and Prussia and Tuscany and Denmark
and Bavaria. All citizens?
Nope, there were slaves and Indians living in the country who were not >citizens and hence, denied the rights defined by the BOR.
It the time it was written non-citizens were denied the rights defined
by the BOR. The individuals did not get the rights until they were
citizens.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:09:16 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons ><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons >>><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and >>>>>particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing >>>firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 oa922
(a) It shall be unlawfulu
(1) for any personu
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienu
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
(5)for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a >corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or >delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or
an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any
person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Don't see citizenship.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:49:56 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:09:16 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:particularly
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing
firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 -o-a922
(a) It shall be unlawfulrCo
(1) for any personrCo
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienrCo
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
(5)for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a
corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or
delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or
an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any
person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Don't see citizenship.
Scrowl down..
On 10/8/2025 4:54 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:49:56 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:09:16 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:particularly
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing
firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 oa922
(a) It shall be unlawfulu
(1) for any personu
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienu
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
(5)for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a
corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or
delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or
an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any
person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Don't see citizenship.
Scrowl down..
"scrowl" is not a word, Dummy.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill<snip>
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>sentence on Osama.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
The whole reason Guantanamo prison exists is because
it's territory the US controls but ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:55:42 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 4:54 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:49:56 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:09:16 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:particularly
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear
arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing >>>>>> firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 -o-a922
(a) It shall be unlawfulrCo
(1) for any personrCo
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship,
transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; >>>>>
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienrCo
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
(5)for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a
corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or >>>> delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or
an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any >>>> person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Don't see citizenship.
Scrowl down..
"scrowl" is not a word, Dummy.
I'm tired.
I'm going to go read a book, now
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:46:44 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>in
wrote:
Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> wrote in >>news:XExFQ.5942$DOhc.783@fx06.iad:
On 10/8/2025 5:59 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holmanparticularly
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, >>>>>>>>>>>> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches >>>>>>>>>>>> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall >>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or >>>>>>>>>>>> things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and
bear arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing
more than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
Not all people present in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of
the people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the
BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
The meaning of "people" in the Constitution is ambiguous. In the
preamble, the use of "people" in the opening clause *clearly* means
citizens. The Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, and
only citizens have the right to vote for state legislators.
In 1789 who was a "citizen"?
Every adult at the time had been
born a British subject. Hamilton had
been born on Nevis, an island in the
Caribbean. The country was teeming
with recent arrivals from France
and Prussia and Tuscany and Denmark
and Bavaria. All citizens?
Nope, there were slaves and Indians living in the country who were not citizens and hence, denied the rights defined by the BOR.
It the time it was written non-citizens were denied the rights defined
by the BOR.
The individuals did not get the rights until they were
citizens.
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in news:a2ddekl67qk20aop9tk6evalfgj88eekil@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:46:44 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>in
wrote:
Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> wrote in
news:XExFQ.5942$DOhc.783@fx06.iad:
On 10/8/2025 5:59 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holmanparticularly
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in
news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, >>>>>>>>>>>>> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches >>>>>>>>>>>>> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall >>>>>>>>>>>>> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or >>>>>>>>>>>>> affirmation, and
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or >>>>>>>>>>>>> things to be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and >>>>>>>> bear arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
Look the quoted Amendment above.
Probable cause is a fuzzy issue, Dummy. Sometimes it's nothing >>>>>>>> more than a dog's bark.
None of the first 8 Amendments even mentions
citizens. It is "the people", "the accused", etc.
People = citizens, Dumbass.
Then what is the point of citizenship
requirements for voting? All people are
citizens, no?
Not all people present in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.
I suspect the founders did not even consider that people could be
the country illegally, but at the time, it was clear that some of
the people in country did not enjoy all the rights specified in the >>>>>> BOR.
Only citizens got those rights. IOW, People = citizens.
The Constitution makes several references
to citizens, the Bill of Rights does not. If
they meant to restrict the BoR to citizens
they would have done so. They didn't.
The meaning of "people" in the Constitution is ambiguous. In the
preamble, the use of "people" in the opening clause *clearly* means
citizens. The Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, and
only citizens have the right to vote for state legislators.
In 1789 who was a "citizen"?
Every adult at the time had been
born a British subject. Hamilton had
been born on Nevis, an island in the
Caribbean. The country was teeming
with recent arrivals from France
and Prussia and Tuscany and Denmark
and Bavaria. All citizens?
Nope, there were slaves and Indians living in the country who were not
citizens and hence, denied the rights defined by the BOR.
Show the 1789 definition of citizen.
It the time it was written non-citizens were denied the rights defined
by the BOR.
The BoR doesn't even mention citizens.
The individuals did not get the rights until they were
citizens.
How did these non-citizens become citizens?
On 10/8/2025 4:55 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:50:36 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 4:47 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:09:57 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>
On 10/8/2025 4:08 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:50:03 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 10/8/2025 3:35 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:Not to me
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:58:47 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 10/8/2025 1:41 PM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:04:07 -0700, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 11:11 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:57:32 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:g72dek5d04b2b76pr355c1f14aqk1hb966@4ax.com:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:37:41 -0700, DoD <danskisanjar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/8/2025 8:31 AM, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:15:06 -0400, -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 10/8/25 09:18, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
...
<LOL> Hollowhead thinks he knows what the Founding Fathers would
have done....
Golly, look at who's never even heard of the Federalist Papers.
FYI, suggest you read Federalist #51 for this thread's topic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From there, contemplate too the language use of the 14A.
-hh
Unless you can show where the issue of rights for non-citizens are
addressed, I've got better things to do.
You have nothing better to do, you calcifying Alzheimer's husk. That's
why you post to Usenet all fucking day.
You stupid fuck: the Supreme Court has *expressly* said that the
first, fourth and fifth amendments apply to non-citizens. The first
amendment doesn't fully apply to aliens *seeking* entry to the U.S.,
but once they're here, it applies in full, *even if* they are not
lawfully present.
You stupid fuck
Undocumented opinions abound on Usenet.
That, from you who brag about
not backing up any of your claims?
I don't claim, Stupid, I opine.
You state that you don't back up your claims, Dummy. Your opinion that others
post "undocumented" opinions to Usenet is itself a worthless opinion.
All opinions are worthless
All of your opinions are worthless, Dummy, because they're based on bullshit.
All non-judicial opinions are worthless.
All non-judicial opinions you hold are worthless. Those expressed by >>>>>>> knowledgeable and cautious people u that lets you out u have value. >>>>>>
We don't care what Dummies find to be worthwhile.
..and yet, here you are arguing your nonsense on Usenet and
I'm not arguing, Dummy. I'm stating facts.
Your opinions are not facts
It is not my "opinion" that the Supreme Court has held that the fourth, fifth >and sixth amendments apply *fully* to undocumented aliens. It is a fact.
People who are not lawfully present are *fully* covered by the first, and third
through eighth, amendments. This is not in rational dispute.
I just expressed another undocumented opinion.
Undocumented, and worthless. Yes, you did.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:43:07 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill<snip>
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death
sentence on Osama.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
Oops! Sorry for the bad edit. I meant 'they were' meaning the
Taliban, among other captives. The 14th was dodged by holding them in
non US territory.
The whole reason Guantanamo prison exists is because
it's territory the US controls but ISN'T US territory.
It's rented ...
NP: Bryan Adams - If You Wanna Leave Me (Can I Come Too?)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:49:56 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:09:16 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons >><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:17:35 -0400, Governor Swill >>><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:18:42 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons >>>><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:59:23 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>news:6subek9vreftpo1a2ponoi6osrd4qlc93p@4ax.com:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:39:20 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>news:nkpaekh93q2jp11dgupi32gvmn87pv73p6@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 17:31:14 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>news:605aektf8o6d80i04u1uhibk38970f9a6l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 13:09:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com> wrote:
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>news:5le9ekhpg3vc2mn8m2db1hmebtlguog1ok@4ax.com:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:38:58 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and >>>>>>particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>be seized.
Not when you've broken the law.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a >>>>>>>>>>> stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Really? Do you really believe illegals have a right to keep and bear >>>>>>>>> arms?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"
...and yet the illegal people do not enjoy that right.
Says who?
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) Look it up, Dummy.
There is nothing in there prohibiing illegal aliens from possessing >>>>firearms.
You thought nobody would read the cite, didn't you?
<snip>
<LOL>
LII U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 oa922
(a) It shall be unlawfulu
(1) for any personu
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed >>>dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or
dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, >>>transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;
<snip>
(5) who, being an alienu
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-922g5-firearm-restrictions-for-non-citizens/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Furthermore, that was upheld by
(5)for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a >>corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or >>delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or
an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any >>person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Don't see citizenship.
Scrowl down..
Do you see Alien?
Do you see "is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; "
LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:46:44 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It the time it was written non-citizens were denied the rights defined
by the BOR.
The BoR doesn't even mention citizens.
The individuals did not get the rights until they were
citizens.
How did these non-citizens become citizens?
Was there an exam, a license, a residency
requirement?
On 10/8/2025 5:00 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:43:07 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:19:58 -0400, Governor Swill<snip>
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:38:54 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
Could be, but it wasn't required. For instance, Obama ordered a death >>>>> sentence on Osama.
It was when he was brought to US territory.
When was Osama brought to US territory? I must have missed it.
Oops! Sorry for the bad edit. I meant 'they were' meaning the
Taliban, among other captives. The 14th was dodged by holding them in
non US territory.
You mean the fifth was dodged, not the fourteenth. The fourteenth is what tells
the states they must give due process. Taliban captives were held by the federal
government, so they had minimal due process rights.
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>>
istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
-a Trump has far more interest in the constitution
-a than leftists ever have.
On 2025-10-06, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 09:59, Trey wrote:
LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| US judge blocks Trump's deployment of Oregon National Guard
| to Portland for now
| ...
<https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-admin >>>>> istration-deploying-national-guard-2025-10-04/>
for now...
Real patriots are loyal to Trump, not the Constitution.
Trump has far more interest in the constitution
than leftists ever have.
(group headers fixed ... sorry about your 'outcome
based education' ......)
Trump, despite the opposition from the left, is trying to protect the legal citizens of the US.
We are truly in a "war" of sorts against an invasion that was encouraged by the
previous administration.
And if the left can't see it, then they are either stupid or objecting simply because they hate Trump and everything he does.
The left loves to bring up the Constitution and the buzz phrase "threat to democracy"
yet they don't care about the Constitution and the only threat they care about is losing power.
Take an hour and sit thorough MSNBC, CNN, NPR and listen to what they are squawking about.
Take note of how they use the EXACT SAME buzz words.
And then understand how observing them reveals the real truth behind the left and democrats
motives.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
The problem for the left wing media is that nobody is listening or believing their
lies any more.
They have been uncloaked.
Esp for people suspected of breaking the law.
People suspected of breaking the law often get arrested. Run a
stoplight in front of a cop and you'll see.
That is not the issue.
All the protections of the Bill
of Rights apply to arrested illegals.
Look the quoted Amendment above.
"The right of the PEOPLE...."
Not "the right of the citizens".
Even when America arrested Manuel
Noriega and dragged him into federal
court on drug charges he was given
all the protections of the Bill of
Rights.