C
CradleRC58
Guest
NRA 1, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0 | National Review
A win for free speech in the city by the bay.
www.nationalreview.com
Well that didn’t take long.
- Status
www.nationalreview.com
Well that didn’t take long.
Good news, indeed, for freedom and the individual rights protected in the constitution from government power.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Board of Supervisors resolution never was binding, and the recent statement by the mayor of San Francisco only clarifies the non-binding nature of the resolution. Not surprisingly, the NRA is vowing to continue their lawsuit. Apparently they want to stifle the free speech of the Board of Supervisors from making non-binding resolutions too. Anything for the PR win for the NRA!
G
Guinness
Guest
Looking at the current state of San Francisco, I imagine the NRA isn’t the only group that would prefer the Board of Supervisors not waste time passing “non binding” resolutions and get to work actually making the city livable again…
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
The Board of Supervisors ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters. That goes well beyond freedom of speech. You cant be serious with your outrageously ridiculous comment.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is a fact. The Board of Supervisors “called for” in a non-binding sense…LeafByNiggle:
The Board of Supervisors ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters. That goes well beyond freedom of speech. You cant be serious with your outrageously ridiculous comment.
The Mayor said it was non-binding. Argue with the Mayor, not with me.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . . .
Good job NRA!
A complete inversion of the whole San Fran debacle. (That is my opinion anyway.)
Good job NRA!
Last edited:
The NRA doesn’t have the power to stifle free speech. That’s a power corrupt governments exercise.
But good for the NRA for stand up against these false accusations
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
Free Speech is a power abrogated by Deep States. Remember, the Deep State existed before the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights exists because of the Deep State’s threat against it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Read about the history of the term “Deep State” right here. Did you know it started in Turkey?
I don’t know about deep state, but the bill was of rights places rights outside of government power regardless.
@LeafByNiggle ‘s contention that the NRA is trying to limit the speech rights (government doesn’t have rights, only powers ) is ludicrous.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
Branding an organization that supports the United States Constitution a terrorist organization isn’t free speech. It’s hate speech.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Since the bill of rights is only a government document, it has no authority outside of that government. What authority does it have in Canada?
When did San Francisco move to Canada?JonNC:
Since the bill of rights is only a government document, it has no authority outside of that government. What authority does it have in Canada?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You made a general statement, did you not?LeafByNiggle:
When did San Francisco move to Canada?JonNC:
Since the bill of rights is only a government document, it has no authority outside of that government. What authority does it have in Canada?
Apparently you recognize that the bill of rights has no force outside of the United States, and in fact will have no force within this land if it ceases to be the United States. In other words, these rights are protected only so long as the government exists. So it is funny to say that the power is outside of government.
The OP is about the San Francisco board of Supervisors slandering of 5 million law abiding Americans, and their attempt to impede their free speech rights. Your attempt to deflect from this and your ludicrous characterization of the NRA’s attempts to legally protect the rights of Americans is weak at best.
It is truly sad that citizens of other countries, including to some extent, Canada, do not have the kind of protection of their inherent rights that our constitution provides, and are subject to government oppression of their rights as a result. I’m sure the SF supervisors would prefer the latter to our system.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, then we can dispense with your ludicrous statement that the bill of rights has power outside of the government.LeafByNiggle:
The OP is about the San Francisco board of Supervisors slandering of 5 million law abiding Americans, and their attempt to impede their free speech rights. Your attempt to deflect from this and your ludicrous characterization of the NRA’s attempts to legally protect the rights of Americans is weak at best.
It is truly sad that citizens of other countries, including to some extent, Canada, do not have the kind of protection of their inherent rights that our constitution provides, and are subject to government oppression of their rights as a result. I’m sure the SF supervisors would prefer the latter to our system.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
The Deep State is a rogue element of society. It’s operates within and outside of government. It is conspiratorial.
Let’s take an example:
A 20 year law enforcement professional who collects a pension and who is a member of a fraternal organization conspires to have a car built using known stolen parts. Parts he conspired to have stolen from a car he owned in the past. The car is donated by a non-profit to a suspected criminal (let’s say a suspected drug dealer). The suspect parks it in a parking lot at a shopping mall. The retired law enforcement professional searches the vehicle while the suspect is inside the mall. He plants drugs in it or finds drugs in it and calls his buddy at the police department to report the findings. The suspect is arrested.
At the end of the day, the government freely cooperated with the retired police professional by doing or not doing.
Let’s take an example:
A 20 year law enforcement professional who collects a pension and who is a member of a fraternal organization conspires to have a car built using known stolen parts. Parts he conspired to have stolen from a car he owned in the past. The car is donated by a non-profit to a suspected criminal (let’s say a suspected drug dealer). The suspect parks it in a parking lot at a shopping mall. The retired law enforcement professional searches the vehicle while the suspect is inside the mall. He plants drugs in it or finds drugs in it and calls his buddy at the police department to report the findings. The suspect is arrested.
At the end of the day, the government freely cooperated with the retired police professional by doing or not doing.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, the “Deep State” is a conspiracy theory, not too different from any number of other conspiracy theories. Some of them are true. Some of them are not. The point is not to see how many way you can imagine conspiracies taking place, but to find evidence that the theories are true.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
Ask intelligent district attorneys if it is a theory and see what you get.
Last edited:
- Status