• GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:13 PM
    Unplug it and put it in the microwave.
    5 replies | 71 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-20-2018, 12:21 PM
    Liberty people eat their own worse than any other group.
    44 replies | 460 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-20-2018, 12:14 PM
    There are hashbrowns beneath the sausage gravy.... You can see one of them on the right hand side bottom of the image.
    59 replies | 965 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:42 AM
    Because you understand the Constitution better than they guy who actually wrote it. Got it. :D
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:34 AM
    called. it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523327-Trump-to-start-US-Space-Force&p=6642262&viewfull=1#post6642262
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:22 AM
    And before you make a snide remark about flintlocks and quill pens, the Framer's original intent was that the right to bear arms extended to the equal armament common to military use, and the original intent of freedom of speech extended to all manner of expression. Whereas the original intent of the Army was a land based combat force, and the Navy a sea based combat force. Original intent is a thing. maybe you should look it up.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:18 AM
    Voyager sent linguistic messages in all human languages.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:17 AM
    The Constituion clearly authorizes two Departments. Army, and Navy. This covers land and sea. If they want a force for the Air, they need to amend the Constitution. If they want a force for Space, they need to amend the Constitution. Original Intent. The Framers did not originally intend aircraft and spaceships.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:08 AM
    .... until there is a 'public' on Mars, which seems to be in the works as we speak, so his point remains.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:06 AM
    lol! out of ammo...
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-19-2018, 12:05 AM
    You don't get to wish whatever you want into the Constitution. The Constitution authorized two branches. An Army branch and a Navy branch. Any military force must either reside under one of the two Constitutionally authorized branches, or a Constitutional Amendment must be made to amend the Constitution to authorize a third branch. This isn't rocket science, and I know you are smarter than this. Is this deliberate, or is this just an example of Trumgasming?
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:58 PM
    So yeah, you are claiming to understand the Constitution better than the guy who wrote it. James Madison wrote in The Virginia Report, 1800, by the Virginia House of Delegates, that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:54 PM
    All of this was during James Madison's Presidency. Again, the guy who actually....wrote....the Constitution: From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Establishment_of_the_modern_Marine_Corps
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:51 PM
    You should demand a refund from your history professor. That base in Georgia that James Madison established in 1811 for Marines to operate out of? Yeah, you didn't know anything about that at all, did you?
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:50 PM
    LMAO! James Madison wrote the Constitution, but Swordsmyth here understands it better than the guy who...you know...actually wrote it... John Adams signed the Act into law to form the Marines in 1798. James Madison served 1809-1817 and continued to utilize the Marines in 1811. Clearly the guy who wrote the Constitution thought they were Constitutional.... Because they were organized under the Constitutional Department of the Navy. smdh.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:43 PM
    No, the Army and Navy provisions are organizational. The Army Air Corps was organized under the Department of the Army. The same people who wrote the Constitution also created the Marine Corps and put them under the Department of the Navy. Are you claiming that the same people who wrote the Constitution did not know how to understand the words that they, themselves wrote?
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:41 PM
    The Marine Corps was raised up by an Act of the Continental Congress on 10 November 1775, and then again in the Constitutional era on 27 March 1794. The Marines were used extensively as an “Army Afloat” for amphibious raids and land marches like the assault on Derna right from the start. Their role did not actually depend on the Navy from the origins of the organization. If what you were claiming was correct, then Congress would have formed the Marines as a “Water Army” branch instead of putting them under the Department of the Navy in order to retain full Constitutionality. The proper method of Constitutional interpretation is Original Intent. The same people who wrote the Constitution had already dealt with the formation of another kind of military branch, and we can see that original intent in that act. Only two military departments are authorized in the Constitution. If you want more than two, amend it. I happen to agree that that we need an Air Force. Until we amend the Constitution, it needs to remain under the Department of the Army.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:23 PM
    Why not have 80 Departments of the Army? You are doing the the exact same bizarre interpretation dance that gave us the FDA, Department of Education, the Drug War, Wickard v Filburn and more. That’s not the way the Constitution is supposed to work. You can’t just retcon whatever you want into the Constitution. That’s how the Swamp operates.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:18 PM
    That sounds like justification for anything you can dream of. After all, the drug war is just a function of interstate commerce, right? Sorry, words have meaning. You don’t get to run around changing the meaning of words in order to shoe-horn whatever the hell you want I to the Constitution. That’s how the left is trying to neuter the Second Amendment. “Regulated” and all that. Article 1 Section 8 authorizes ONE Army and ONE Navy, so even if we took your absurdity as an “Air Army” it still doesn’t work. The provision is organizational, not connotative. When it was the Army Air Corps it was under the Department of the Army and therefore Constitutional. In order to become it’s own organizational branch it requires a Constitutional Amendment. This should be blatant on it’s face. Don’t get carried away by wishful thinking.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:05 PM
    Just because the government does it, doesn’t automagically make it Constitutional. In order to have a US Air Force that is not the Army Air Corps, requires a Constitutional Amendment. If you seriously got an Air Force out of Article 1 Section 8, then I don’t think I’ve got anything to help you.
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 11:03 PM
    And Iím the a-hole for recognizing it in 2015....
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-18-2018, 10:56 PM
    Pretty sure this requires a Constitutional Amendment...
    93 replies | 1056 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 02:34 PM
    The NCLEG just unanimously passed "AN ACT TO REQUIRE RESIDUAL OIL FROM HEMP EXTRACT TO BE DISPOSED AT ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC SECURE COLLECTION BOXES MANAGED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT." CBD oil is legal in NC as long as it contains less than a percent of THC. Now if you use CBD oil you have to dispose of your bottles with the cops. SMDH
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 02:26 PM
    The failed 2010 bill, the successful 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills, and the currently considered 2018 bill hand that power to local cops. The 2018 bill currently may remove the warrant requirement from local cops and certified diversion investigators, while retaining the warrant requirement for Sheriffs.
    20 replies | 2129 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 02:18 PM
    Also worth noting, the bill I killed in 2011, was then implemented piecemeal in 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The current act merely consolidates and expands that existing law.
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 02:01 PM
    Aaaaand they are trying again, only this time it looks like it's going to pass. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523178-N-C-Bill-Would-Make-Prescription-Records-Available-to-Police-Without-a-Warrant
    20 replies | 2129 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 01:59 PM
    Looks like they tried to do this in 2010 also. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?260023-North-Carolina-cops-push-for-access-to-drug-prescription-records Apparently they have been trying to do this for a while and they finally have the opioid "crisis" to make it happen.
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 01:57 PM
    Strike that "better," they stuck the Sheriff access in section 11 page 6 line 22. So it's even WORSE than 2011. It looks like it will be heard around 4:30 5pm ish, and there is a committee substitute as well as a number of amendments to consider. Craig Horn's (unsurprisingly) first amendment makes it even worse, adding in access for ALL local law enforcement, and lowers the standards to "good-faith" https://dashboard.ncleg.net/CalendarItem/2017/H/0/2018-06-13/21928
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    06-13-2018, 01:36 PM
    Long history behind this one. I killed this effort almost single handedly in 2011 by screaming bloody murder and making it too embarrassing to push. I THOUGHT there was an article about the current effort here on RPFs about ... a month or so ago? But after a search it turns out that discussion was on fedbook with some GOP County Chairs, who mostly took my side of the argument. It passed unanimously out of the Senate on 5/11, and it's on the House Calendar for today. https://www2.ncleg.net/BillLookUp/2017/s616 The piece referred to in the headline is section 8, starting on page 3 line 36.
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
  • Brett85's Avatar
    06-11-2018, 09:12 PM
    Thank you!
    17 replies | 603 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    hehe, yeah there are a few that I know of but not many..
  2. View Conversation
    yes, in fact I am Jewish.. through my mother and father..
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About MichaelDavis

Basic Information

About MichaelDavis
Occupation:
Student

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
965
Posts Per Day
0.54
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
09-01-2013 06:01 PM
General Information
Last Activity
02-15-2015 02:09 AM
Join Date
08-12-2013
Referrals
0

9 Friends

  1. Brett85 Brett85 is offline

    Member

    Brett85
  2. compromise compromise is offline

    Banned

    compromise
  3. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  4. eduardo89 eduardo89 is offline

    Banned

    eduardo89
  5. FrankRep FrankRep is offline

    Member

    FrankRep
  6. GunnyFreedom GunnyFreedom is offline

    Agent of Freedom

    GunnyFreedom
  7. gwax23 gwax23 is offline

    Banned

    gwax23
  8. Kotin Kotin is offline

    Moderator

    Kotin
  9. TaftFan TaftFan is offline

    Member

    TaftFan
Showing Friends 1 to 9 of 9
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...