New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

There in, lies the rub.

 

Again — no one is saying religion is banned, religious practice can be. Thus the amendment is not absolute

This shouldn’t be this hard to comprehend.

 

If she can't cite the law that she's enforcing, then she's acting illegally.

 

Exactly! By your logic, guns can't be banned, only unlawful actions using guns are banned. Leaving the right to keep and bear arms intact. Just like human sacrifice is illegal, but the religions aren't.

It's tough getting you people across the finish line, but it isn't impossible...usually.

 

Therein lies her crime.

 

how many times will you need to read my post to understand a simple point I was making.

 

We have an amendment prohibiting the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, but you're ok with that being violated.

 

Congress has no legislative power to involve itself in any way with religion.

 

Do you know NM law? I don’t, as Governor I’ll bet she has some emergency powers.

What I will never understand is why “the right” is so hell bent on trying everything in the court of public opinion?

 

I would be happy to see her action over ruled if I were you. She will not be prosecuted, if that’s what YOU’RE trying to gin up.

 

I don't know NM law. That's why I'm wondering what NM law allows her actions.

 

She should be prosecuted. She's violating 18 USC 241.

 

Well she is governor, so there is that.

 

Bet not.

 

The governor is the executive, right? The governor may only execute law.

So which law is she executing?

 

So now I am the official spokesman of Wild Bill ?


I'm talking about the actual topic which you seem to keep dodging.... Actually it's not that you seem to be dodging it.... It's that you ARE dodging it !

So I'll attempt to ask you for the third time now.... Do you believe this Governor has the authority to just supersede constitutional rights for the residents of her state?

I thought only those who wear the federal robes can do such things. That's because that's whose job it is, not a governor's.

And even their interpretations should only be tolerated so far.... We the people have an amendment process. It was made to be fairly difficult to implement because evidently the founding fathers did foresee that a large portion of the population would not use it very wisely.

 

Why do Democrats hate the constitution?

 

States do not have the right to violate the constitution.

 

An emergency action that, unquestionably and willfully, violates the constitution.

 

No, bald faced racism isn't a "point".

 

Your density number is wrong, according to my source, though your point, that Vermont's is higher than Mississippi's, still stands as true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...es_of_the_United_States_by_population_density

This is why, btw, it is preferable for a debater, when asserting something which no one could be reasonably expected to be able to concur with, from their own knowledge, to cite his sources. As your first stat seems erroneous, or perhaps just rather old, I can have no confidence that your second figure, about violent crime, is any more accurate. But, only for the sake of argument, if I allow that this idea will yet bear out, that there is more per capita violent crime in MS than in VT, which seems believable, I will point out that there are many factors involved in this.

Even just in the idea of population density, we would, if we were being thorough, take into consideration the distribution of that population. IOW, a population which is scattered about on considerably sized plots of land, even if their density is greater than that of another state, still provides a less volatile environment for violent crime, and especially for mass violence, if that other state has a higher proportion of essentially unpopulated land, with higher concentrations of larger numbers in cities, since density figures are computed in relation to the state's total acreage.

But it is more even than just that. Economics, of course, come into play. Further, I would allow, though it would be much tougher to measure, than income or unemployment rate, or degree of property ownership, for example, that differing aspects of regional cultures, could conceivably impact on their violent crime figure, as well.

In short, it is silly to expect one factor to make all the difference. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make a significant difference. It may, of course, be more or less significant, based on all those other factors, of the population's economics, distribution/concentrations, and possibly culture.

 

Have you read the law?

"Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right."

The governor isn't above the law.

 

what's the racism that you are talking about?

 

There are way more black people in Mississippi than in Vermont, too.

 

because the founders despised leftwing authoritarian malignancy and the tyranny of the mob, and the constitution was designed to prevent to creeping crud of collectivism