should be marx i think. and not stalin. or ?

#memeoftheweek

I mean he did technically hit the sign lol...

but no bullseye

are they free or in protective custody ....and those that are 'free' are really on lo-jack status

@WhiteMoogle now that i've had time to settle and think about it... most custody cases are settled via JOINT custody. The men who fight have a 40% chance of winning sole custody whereas women have 60% chance and the numbers are only increasing for men because men are choosing to fight more. I'm guaranteeing that you're withholding vital information. I do it, too. When I don't want people to know things... I don't tell them. Not saying there aren't insane judges out there, I just find it hard to believe you didn't know she was a drug addict if she used drugs that often which means you didn't make very good decisions yourself and I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself partook in those activities. I mean, drug addicts don't make very good parents. I speak from experience. Just saying.

the article i read on it said mens rights in family courts have been increasing the past the 20 years. the best way to remove the states with bad family court laws would be to remove the bad lawmakers

technically the bad lawmakers are the courts assuming that they're the lawmakers when in constitutional law...they're not the law makers(their behavior is known as 'admiralty' law)

you know, a lot of people never really pay attention to what their state and local officials sign into law.

I know I certainly didn't but i didn't pay attention to politics at all until Trump won

like, state laws are some of the most important laws people need to be paying attention to because those are the ones that effect daily life

i had a very good civics teacher in jhs

made us collect news paper clippings and such to find patterns

if u really look, i mean really look...into ur state and local laws..most of them are admiralty laws

they got lazy in the elected gov, and they got greedy in the courts to make this bs happen

for example ...say driving rights or consent laws or drinking ages ...they seem to change alot over the decades...but u won't find any constitutional law governing them

all admiralty laws(except for texas consent law)

it basically depends on each state then local city gov's setup

but it all boils down to this ...no state nor local gov operating in the usa may make any law that violates constitutional law of the united states and the bill of rights

but those 3 examples of 'driving rights and drinking laws or consent statues' ...either violate or restrict behavior of ppl's rights...

but dont they do that all the time ? whats done about that ?

some police districts have tried to arrest ppl that refused to show their driver's lic, when it's the constitutional right not to do so

also the gun laws ? not just the red flags.

yep

also i wonder why everytime i see a politician or such that have sworen a oeth to the constitution. yet keeps talkign about changing it. and so on. but have sword to protect it.. and no one ever asks them about it.

well technically they can make some changes ....but it has to be voted upon and by the ppl, not just elected officials

yeah but dosent tha tviolate there oath ? to protect it ?

primary usa constitution can't be changed..., but rights can be created or amended ...except for the 2a

has a clause it in saying 'shall not be infringed'

technically anything after the first 10 can be created, amended or removed..but it has be a total vote for removal

or at least a 2/3's of both house and senate

first 10 are basically locked in