Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone noticed how much these gun lovers get so afraid and emotionally when you discuss anything negative about their precious..... Just brimming with insecurities.
You would be happier if you put the Dunces in their boxes. For a while it's entertaining, but after that point they are just a pain in the ass. The fact you converse or articulate just gives them the feeling that they have impact and so are important when they are not. They just have pretend in life and nothing else.
They have No Votes No Bill No law and no gun control. All they have is that whine! This afternoon I rode by city dwellers from Mass. I was doing 55+ MPH on the bike and i could friggin smell their women from 35 feet way at that speed! I have no idea what the women were hiding, but what ever it was it hadda be bad.
That's all city dwellers have is a pretend world. They think working in a cube is earning a living. In the blink of any eye the company can sell out and in less time they get pink slips and are escorted from the place with a box full of plastic plants.
This new 29 hour work week is going to be really interesting. it just makes me wonder what passions in life they will follow? My best guess is having 3 jobs for less to make ends meet, with less bennies and NO Vacation.
LOLZ. Ah the "country boy will survive" mantra. Rural America has more poverty, crime, and drugs per capita.... I can see why you need your precious.
Has anyone noticed how much these gun lovers get so afraid and emotionally when you discuss anything negative about their precious..... Just brimming with insecurities.
Have you ever noticed how pro choice people get their nighties in a knot if you discuss anything regarding infringing on RoevWade which by the way is not SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS LIKE THE SECOND AMMENDMENT. Just brimming with insecurities? Get a clue.
wrong, the second amendment was put in the constitution not for a militia, and not for replacing a standing army, but to protect all the other rights of the constitution by the citizens against an overbearing out of control government.
Bull. Read a history book. Get your head out of rightwing radio, TV and websites. Here, I'll get you started: District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary There is absolutely nothing in those briefs that comes close to what you are claiming.
Furthermore, your statement is false on its face, as the rights you are referring to were not in the Constitution at the time the 2nd Amendment was being drafted. Why do so many rightwingers think The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution?
The Founders were not referring to themselves when speaking of tyrannical government; and if the Founders wanted us to protect our own rights with weapons, why on earth did they set up the judiciary? LMAO at what some people believe.
Last edited by nvxplorer; 07-22-2014 at 01:36 PM..
Is it time to change ? Would the authors write it this day and age?
When this was written there was no semi automatic,automatic, assualt rifles. They did not know of mental cases and stress of modern day life.
Guns are designed to kill so are swords.. Only knives are designed for cutting vegetables.
I know we just use some tragedy to beat up pro and anti gun rights people. But isn't it time to talk?
sure
look at it this way.
since lots of people and politicians say that the firearm laws are not working and that we need sensible firearms laws, then why not repeal all current firearms laws 1st?
that way we can get rid of all those pesky gun laws that are not working and we can strive toward some sensible gun laws.
if you are not in favor of repealing all current gun laws before passing new ones, then what you are saying is that you are just in favor of taking firearms out of the hands of the people and making sure that only government has the firearms.
my point does make sense. if it is not working, then repeal it and then work toward something better.
Bull. Read a history book. Get your head out of rightwing radio, TV and websites. Here, I'll get you started: District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary There is absolutely nothing in those briefs that comes close to what you are claiming.
What would how the 2nd Amendments application pertains to preventing tyranny have on the Heller Case?
Heller was about the handgun prohibition in DC, it wasn't about the ultimate expression of the 2nd Amendment. Were each and every lawsuit required to pursue the ultimate expression of any decision then the final judgements could never be written. Law only applies to the prima facie case involved and does not include what the ultimate effect of what that decision may be. That would be outrageous, there would be decisions made not because the action was legal or illegal, but because of the possible effects of how the decision made would affect current law outside of the scope of the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Furthermore, your statement is false on its face, as the rights you are referring to were not in the Constitution at the time the 2nd Amendment was being drafted. Why do so many rightwingers think The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution?
No they were not, but what does the constitution actually define...?
Read it, firstly the Constitution applies solely to the government it defines admin (who, how and where), the separation of powers, and defines the enumerated powers of government (the enumerated powers which are exclusively vested) and eight specific limits, and then defines how our federalism works. Thus in the original constitution there is no defined right for the people to bear arms, but there doesn't need to be if the constitution only applies to the government, and if the government faithfully executes what is defined in the constitution, the same exists for freedom of religion, and free speech, there is no need because there is no enumerated power that permits government interference.
Thus in that instance what the 2nd Amendment specifically protects would need no protection, this is why Madison was opposed to a Bill of Rights, he had good intentions. Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and George Mason were opposed as they foresaw how "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." could be abused. Were it not for the Bill of Rights, then the Constitution as written would never have passed, it was only on condition of specifically removing individual rights from the sphere of influence of the government to be amended after the ratification that the Constitution passed.
So immediately following the ratification of the Constitution the Bill of Rights was drafted, debated and ratified, however the Bill of Rights is not exclusive but inclusive (i.e. your rights include), the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically call that out (which is why I often argue that driving and owning a car is protected under the Bill of Rights under the 9th Amendment). I'll add that had this not been done between people who knew each other and trusted their words then the constitution would have been dead on the floor, there is no way that today any item of legislation would be supported on a verbal agreement that it be amended immediately following being passed. It was a different time, where many of those on both sides of the opposition knew and trusted one another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
The Founders were not referring to themselves when speaking of tyrannical government;
No because they knew that at that time they had just been subject to what they considered tyrannic rule, and would not act in that way. However they were clearly suspicious of the actions and motives of their successors, or enough to prevent passage of the Constitution would not have required the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
and if the Founders wanted us to protect our own rights with weapons, why on earth did they set up the judiciary? LMAO at what some people believe.
The founders set up the judiciary to prevent anarchy. People will obtain justice through the pathways that are open to them. If there is no pathway they will obtain justice by whatever means necessary; this still happens today with the courts where people feel that justice has not been served and take it into their own hands. Timothy McVeigh is one such example on a large scale, he felt that government actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge deserved justice, but felt that the judicial pathways were stymied, thus took his form of justice into his own hands.
However the judiciary are not enabled up to provide the mechanisms of personal defense, and to require the judiciary to be solely the arbiters of providing personal defense would eliminate the right to self defense (which not only is a natural well known right, but also recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights).
So we need to look at what exactly is self defense, on the naive level it is protecting yourself from an attacker, so what is an attacker? It's everything from an individual who means to inflict violence to the government of your country meaning to inflict violence (which many people would consider to be Tyranny). So then what is violence? Abstractly it is the elimination of property or rights without consent and may involve injury or death should compliance not be forthcoming.
Consider the Founders carefully considered separation of powers, Congress, Executive and Judiciary are all separate on a Federal level, Government, States, and the people are all separate on a countrywide level. The Federal Government has the US military, the States had National Guard and have States Militia, the people have both the right to form their own militia and own weapons to defend themselves, as mentioned above in what is self defense, those weapons may need to be used against your government should your government be inflicting violence, it's a natural human right to be able to defend yourself from an attacker.
Has anyone noticed how much these gun lovers get so afraid and emotionally when you discuss anything negative about their precious..... Just brimming with insecurities.
We are not afraid.
You discuss lies and falsehoods. Who would not correct a falsehood and expose a liar?
Bull. Read a history book. Get your head out of rightwing radio, TV and websites. Here, I'll get you started: District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary There is absolutely nothing in those briefs that comes close to what you are claiming.
Furthermore, your statement is false on its face, as the rights you are referring to were not in the Constitution at the time the 2nd Amendment was being drafted. Why do so many rightwingers think The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution?
The Founders were not referring to themselves when speaking of tyrannical government; and if the Founders wanted us to protect our own rights with weapons, why on earth did they set up the judiciary? LMAO at what some people believe.
They understood it could and would happen..
They never thought the judiciary would be used to undermine the Constitutional rights of the American people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This afternoon I rode by city dwellers from Mass. I was doing 55+ MPH on the bike and i could friggin smell their women from 35 feet way at that speed! I have no idea what the women were hiding, but what ever it was it hadda be bad.
