# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Do firearms empower people?

## Figaro

Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
600x3691.jpg

----------


## JustPassinThru

Of course not.

A 9-1-1 phone system, with cellular phones provided by taxpayers, with Federal Police officers ready and willing to help...THOSE empower people.

Seriously.  What is the difference between a peon and a freeman?

A peon begs his liege lord for meat once a month.

A freeman, dressed in silk or in rags, stands tall - and provides for himself.  Because he DROVE OFF the would-be earl/duke/count/liege lord/bond holder - WITH A WEAPON.  

What happens when one group of people (government operatives and pawns/soldiers) have firearms; and another group opposing them (alleged freemen) do NOT?  The freemen are not free.  The first in line DIE; the rest become bound peasants to save their lives.

Only someone preprogrammed with an agenda, could fail to understand this.

----------

Daily Bread (11-21-2014),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-21-2014),freyasman (10-24-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),Old Ridge Runner (10-21-2014),Sled Dog (10-23-2014),Wehrwolfen (10-23-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> 600x3691.jpg


What percent of some 330 million people hunt,,, or even want to hunt. You must live in the stone age. Owning a firearm probably makes some folks feel big or more secure, but all to often accidents in the home deflate that bubble.  If I lived in a high crime area I would move on rather than  thinking I could shoot my way out of it.

I grew up on a farm, or I should say in a farm town, and had everyday access to a .22 rifle and a shotgun.  So hunting and shooting for sport is old hat for me. I had one accident with a BB gun and shot a friend in the arm. That was close enough for me. It did not break the skin but it hurt like hell, so he said. It could have been his eye.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What percent of some 330 million people hunt,,, or even want to hunt. You must live in the stone age. Owning a firearm probably makes some folks feel big or more secure, but all to often accidents in the home deflate that bubble.  If I lived in a high crime area I would move on rather than  thinking I could shoot my way out of it.
> 
> I grew up on a farm, or I should say in a farm town, and had everyday access to a .22 rifle and a shotgun.  So hunting and shooting for sport is old hat for me. I had one accident with a BB gun and shot a friend in the arm. That was close enough for me. It did not break the skin but it hurt like hell, so he said. It could have been his eye.


The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting.

----------

Daily Bread (11-21-2014),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),Wehrwolfen (10-23-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Of course not.
> 
> A 9-1-1 phone system, with cellular phones provided by taxpayers, with Federal Police officers ready and willing to help...THOSE empower people.
> 
> Seriously.  What is the difference between a peon and a freeman?
> 
> A peon begs his liege lord for meat once a month.
> 
> A freeman, dressed in silk or in rags, stands tall - and provides for himself.  Because he DROVE OFF the would-be earl/duke/count/liege lord/bond holder - WITH A WEAPON.  
> ...


Such academic musing looks more like paranoia to me than anything.  You have been reading too many middle age novels.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Such academic musing looks more like paranoia to me than anything.  You have been reading too many middle age novels.


No.

History.

All of history.  Men with weapons, can and usually do wield their will on men without weapons.

Disarmed populations become tools of their governments.  Be it Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, or any land occupied by another army.

----------

Daily Bread (11-21-2014),Wehrwolfen (10-31-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

And, ummm ...  Better RUN, Hansel ~ JPT is PACKING HEAT!!!

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> What percent of some 330 million people hunt,,, or even want to hunt. You must live in the stone age. Owning a firearm probably makes some folks feel big or more secure, but all to often accidents in the home deflate that bubble.  If I lived in a high crime area I would move on rather than  thinking I could shoot my way out of it.
> 
> I grew up on a farm, or I should say in a farm town, and had everyday access to a .22 rifle and a shotgun.  So hunting and shooting for sport is old hat for me. I had one accident with a BB gun and shot a friend in the arm. That was close enough for me. It did not break the skin but it hurt like hell, so he said. It could have been his eye.


What kind of pussy swears off weaponry because of a fucking _BB gun_ accident, that didn't even draw blood???

----------

birddog (10-21-2014),Coolwalker (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014),Wehrwolfen (10-31-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> 600x3691.jpg


Yes, they do.  They're tools.  Just like a book empowers a person to gain knowledge and a set of tools empowers a person to repair their own car or home, firearms empower a person to defend themselves against both criminals and tyranny.

----------

birddog (10-21-2014),fyrenza (10-21-2014),Green Man (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),usfan (10-22-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.

----------


## Victory

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> Attachment 6270


Ask Amanda Collins.  See what she has to say and see how political troll Evie Hudak responds.







You tell me.  Do guns empower women against rapists?  Here's one for you.  Did a gun empower Jeanne Assam to kill Matthew Murphy before he could complete his murderous rampage in Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Co...Life_shootings

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec...ion/na-shoot11

It's a stupid fucking question and I'm getting tired of answering it.  It's in the life blood of every human being to protect themselves.  Those who don't see that are denying their own nature.

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Here's a woman wished she'd brought her gun with her into Lubby's:




Here's a later piece on CNN:

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Victory

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


Oh well.  We got guns.  So the gubmint best shut the fuck up.  See, that's how it works.

----------

freyasman (10-25-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Here's a woman wished she'd brought her gun with her into Lubby's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a later piece on CNN:


Suzanna Gratia Hupp is awesome.  The exchange between her and the CNN air head is like watching an argument between a alligator and a duck.  Hupp is the clear winner as usual.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, that's not how it works.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.

----------


## Calypso Jones

The number of guns in this country ratio to the number of americans is something like ..EACH American has a gun.  That is pretty awesome. 

This government can't get a single soldier out of mexico, can't close the borders, can't even stop travel from ebola infected African nations, can't find whose responsible for fast and furious or the Benghazi murders.  They're emasculating the military and law enforcement. so.  I think we could take them if we had to.    They can't seem to get off the golf course.

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),usfan (10-22-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What kind of pussy swears off weaponry because of a fucking _BB gun_ accident, that didn't even draw blood???


and he wasn't even the one hit!!

----------


## Victory

> No, that's not how it works.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


So you're completely clueless about the Battle of Athens, TN.  How is it that a guy who chose a philosopher for an avatar resists reading so much?  Isn't that kinda out of whack?

----------


## Calypso Jones

if you don't mind.  I think i'll take a man who will shoot to protect his family.    I"LL even shoot to protect my family.  I don't think of it as empowering.  I think of it in terms of I DESERVE TO LIVE.  AS do my kids.

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014)

----------


## birddog

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


You are just plain wrong!  A tyrannical government necessitated the Second Amendment.  Guns in the hands of responsible citizens save lives!

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.  That's not the way we defend our rights in America. Our rights and liberty is maintained by law, not guns. It is the duty of the citizenry and the government it elects to uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In this, we do not exercise our constitutional rights as citizens by armed insurrection; we do so peacefully at the ballot box and in the courts of law. Under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.

----------

Devil505 (10-21-2014)

----------


## Crunch

The lady who runs our HOA is empowered and all she has is a pen and a set of rules which she ruthlessly enforces!

----------

Graham Garner (10-21-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. 

  Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation, who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal governments authority over the states and their citizens. 

  We would do well to learn from history rather than trying to rewrite it.

----------

Devil505 (10-21-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.  That's not the way we defend our rights in America. Our rights and liberty is maintained by law, not guns. It is the duty of the citizenry and the government it elects to uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In this, we do not exercise our constitutional rights as citizens by armed insurrection; we do so peacefully at the ballot box and in the courts of law. Under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.





> The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. 
> 
> Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation, who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal governments authority over the states and their citizens. 
> 
> We would do well to learn from history rather than trying to rewrite it.


But you don't understand:
The fact that President Obama was elected *twice* is such an outrage to the Right that a revolution is necessary!

----------


## Graham Garner

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
- Walt Kelly

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting.


Why is this not clearly understood?  Why does the argument always turn to  "If you need that much firepower to hunt squirrels......."?

----------


## Coolwalker

If you ask a question like this you already know the answer.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.



Excuse me but that is bullshit of the first order.  The exact reason for the second amendment was to empower the people to keep their government in check.  

Don't know much about history do you?

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014),JustPassinThru (10-21-2014),RMNIXON (10-21-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No, that's not how it works.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


So as long as you allow the government to exert its will over the people we can own guns?  We just can't use them to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.  That's not the way we defend our rights in America. Our rights and liberty is maintained by law, not guns. It is the duty of the citizenry and the government it elects to uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In this, we do not exercise our constitutional rights as citizens by armed insurrection; we do so peacefully at the ballot box and in the courts of law. Under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.



I agree totally that the citizens AND the government are to uphold the Constitution but what happens when the government fails to do so?  Suppose for an instance Obama decides to cancel elections in 2016 for any reason.  Do we, as citizens, have the right to depose the tyrant from office?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government

This is the very foundation of the founding of this country.  The Declaration declares what we believe, the Constitution allows what we believe to become who we are.

Are you Chinese or Cuban by chance?

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

No.  We as citizens do not have the right to depose the President of the United States.  Under the Constitution, that power is vested in the Congress to bring articles of impeachment from office.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

You are funny Graham.  According to you ALL of the power rest in the government and none with the citizens.  You do realize do you not that this is exactly 180 degrees from what the Declaration of Independence declares.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,* --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## EvilObamaClone

In some cases they really do.

But against a government with the military might that America has?

No.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


*In certain states*, Graham.

In other states there are "Stand Your Ground" laws and all kinds of very sane stuff designed to counter the liberal insanity of the nanny state.

Everyone and their dumbass brother knows the cops are incapable of protecting us, Graham. In any life threatening situation where seconds matter, the cops will be there in a matter of minutes.

You'll never take away my means to protect myself, Graham, and it doesn't matter what your shit-for-brains "law" says.

Money is speech, buildings are people, and the cops can get there in time. *That* is your shit-for-brains "law".

Sorry, Graham. There is a law much higher than your shit-for-brains "law", and shit-for-brains liberal lawyers can't corrupt it, impede it, or conjure it away with in a haze of Orwellian verbiage.

Our federal government is specifically forbidden from impeding the People from carrying (and therefore using) arms.

You can argue about it all fucking day, Graham, and it won't change a thing.

There is a law much higher than US government law, and eventually - eventually - the two will come into alignment. Probably won't be within your lifetime or mine, but eventually it'll happen.

There are no dictators in this country, Graham, and it's amazingly foolish to try to "represent" one, verbally or in any other way.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> *The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.*   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


Says who?  Just you? 

The Declaration of Independence makes clear the thoughts of the Founders: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -*-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government,

----------


## johnson

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> Attachment 6270


Do people really need high powered assault rifles with large capacity magazines for self defense? Nut jobs use these to mow down innocent people,l
like little kids in schools. 

A forum pal on another site is an experienced leo and said the best defensive weapons are a revolver and a pump shotgun like a 
Remington, which is relatively reliable. He prefers the revolver over a semi auto because it is less liable to jam.  I take it this way, if you can't put the
bad guy down with a shot or two then you ain't gonna do it.

To sum it up, I think it is a good idea for folks to have a defensive weapon or two, of the type I just mentioned or even a semi auto handgun, but the 
killing machines are a liable to most of us. And full auto rifles buck too much to hold them on target anyway.

I would like to have a concealed carry permit and pack some iron but my wife won't put up with it and I can see her point. The incident rate of firearm
assaults around here is practically non existent so we would have a greater risk of being hurt accidentally. 

 How about a stainless steel S&W with a 17 round clip and one in the chamber for openers?  And they make shotguns with a capacity around 13 rounds.
Just the thing for riot police.   :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Devil505

> Says who?  Just you? 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence makes clear the thoughts of the Founders: 
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -*-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government,


Problem is a small/vocal minority doesn't get to make that decision....the majority does.

----------


## johnson

> The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting.


Tell that to  the guy that wrote the OP.

----------


## Devil505

> Do people really need high powered assault rifles with large capacity magazines for self defense? Nut jobs use these to mow down innocent people,l
> like little kids in schools. 
> 
> A forum pal on another site is an experienced leo and said the best defensive weapons are a revolver and a pump shotgun like a 
> Remington, which is relatively reliable. He prefers the revolver over a semi auto because it is less liable to jam.  I take it this way, if you can't put the
> bad guy down with a shot or two then you ain't gonna do it.
> 
> To sum it up, I think it is a good idea for folks to have a defensive weapon or two, of the type I just mentioned or even a semi auto handgun, but the 
> killing machines are a liable to most of us. And full auto rifles buck too much to hold them on target anyway.


Agreed. (only exception would be my preference for an automatic over a revolver as most people can use the additional rounds over the 6 that most revolvers usually hold. I would recommend a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 10 for civilian self-defense needs)

----------


## johnson

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


Self defense is an iffy thing as are the so-called laws of some states.

Question:  If a bystanders sees an assault on another person and intervenes with his firearm is he liable to charges for helping the victim out of  a jam?

I have seen stories of customers foiling robbery attempts by shooting the sobs but don't know how the shooter made out in court.  I think we have to be careful about having a bunch of vigilantes running around looking for a chance to exercise their firepower.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No.  We as citizens do not have the right to depose the President of the United States.  Under the Constitution, that power is vested in the Congress to bring articles of impeachment from office.


You're lying, Graham. You of all people ought to know better than spouting nonsense like this!

US citizens most certainly do have the God-given, natural, and permanent right to depose the President of the United States or *any other fuckin' body that decides they're somehow magically 'in charge'*.

This government is not 'in charge', Graham - We the People are, and we can replace our idiotic fucking government any time we damn well please.

That is reality. Law or no law, that is reality.

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Once again, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or actually even for self defense.  The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to empower the people with the ability to change their government by force if necessary if it no longer provided the security for the individual.  

If I am going to go up against a well trained army I would want as much fire power as possible, and that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment.

Please don't tell me anything about muzzle loaders or black powder, those were state of the art weapons at the time and it can be logically assumed state of the art weaponry would always be acceptable.

----------


## Graham Garner

The people don’t have the right to even vote for the President of the United States, much less depose him.  The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic; which is a representative form of government. Under the Constitution, a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; _Bush v. Gore_, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).  The power to remove the President of the United States resides only in Congress.  Get used to it.

----------


## Devil505

> The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to empower the people with the ability to change their government by force if necessary if it no longer provided the security for the individual.  
> 
> If I am going to go up against a well trained army I would want as much fire power as possible, and that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment.


BS!

You guys keep pretending the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment don't exist.
*"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
*
A child could read that sentence and understand the people's right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia for the defense of this nation. (luckily for me the SCOTUS disagrees with me)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The people don’t have the right to even vote for the President of the United States, much less depose him.  The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic; which is a representative form of government. Under the Constitution, a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; _Bush v. Gore_, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).  The power to remove the President of the United States resides only in Congress.  Get used to it.


You're being very foolish, Graham. Remember John F Kennedy? He was "removed", correct? Darn tootin'.

Don't give me your scumbag "authority" bullshit, Graham.

At the end of the day, the People own this country and the special interests don't.

Get used to it.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You guys keep pretending the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment don't exist.
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> *
> A child could read that sentence and understand the people's right to bear arms was tied to a well regulates militia for the defense of this nation. (luckily for me the SCOTUS disagrees with me)


Well, Devil, IMO you're on the right rack but I would raise a point of order with you.

I would change your sentence to read "the peoples' right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia for the defense of the State".

My reading of history is, it was all about the States. Several States (like Maryland for instance) were scared to death that the big bad federal government would trample all over them (and their oddball laws and their oddball ways of life), so the other states had to agree to the Second specifically to recognize the sovereignty of each individual State.

'Course, that whole rationale kinda changed after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction, when the States (all of them) were made entirely subservient to the federal government. *Money* was used as a mechanism for this purpose, the National Currency Act of 1864 was the first time banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral, and that was the first historical use of the philosophy of "economic interdependence". Believe I pointed you to the Slaughterhouse Cases previously, yes? They're very instructive, you can see in them the very first glimmer of the "monopolistic federal government" and how exactly that trickles down legally, even all the way to the local level.

----------


## Graham Garner

I would be more circumspect in what you say if I were you.  What you are advocating constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.  You can be prosecuted just for making statements like this stupid person:
http://aattp.org/teabagging-wisconsi...esident-obama/

----------


## JustPassinThru

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.  That's not the way we defend our rights in America. Our rights and liberty is maintained by law, not guns. It is the duty of the citizenry and the government it elects to uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In this, we do not exercise our constitutional rights as citizens by armed insurrection; we do so peacefully at the ballot box and in the courts of law. Under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.


The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the individual's right of self-defense with whatever weapon and technology there was to that end.

Defense against marauders.  Defense against housebreakers.

Defense against criminals in the street.

Defense of the nation, as a citizen-volunteer militia.

And, YES, defense against a government that breaks the bounds of the Constitution and acts in lawless, tyrannical fashion against the citizens.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I would be more circumspect in what you say if I were you.  What you are advocating constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.  You can be prosecuted just for making statements like this stupid person:
> http://aattp.org/teabagging-wisconsi...esident-obama/


Fine. Come get me. Here I am.

----------

fyrenza (10-21-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Well, Devil, IMO you're on the right rack but I would raise a point of order with you.
> 
> I would change your sentence to read "the peoples' right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia for the defense of the State".
> 
> My reading of history is, it was all about the States. Several States (like Maryland for instance) were scared to death that the big bad federal government would trample all over them (and their oddball laws and their oddball ways of life), so the other states had to agree to the Second specifically to recognize the sovereignty of each individual State.
> 
> 'Course, that whole rationale kinda changed after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction, when the States (all of them) were made entirely subservient to the federal government. *Money* was used as a mechanism for this purpose, the National Currency Act of 1864 was the first time banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral, and that was the first historical use of the philosophy of "economic interdependence". Believe I pointed you to the Slaughterhouse Cases previously, yes? They're very instructive, you can see in them the very first glimmer of the "monopolistic federal government" and how exactly that trickles down legally, even all the way to the local level.


I'm not sure I understand your correction but _ do_ _disagree with this: ....._ "'Course, that whole rationale kinda changed after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction, when the States (all of them) were made entirely subservient to the federal government."

*The Supremacy Clause*.... http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause  ....Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. ...
was part of the original Constitution and made the states subservient to the federal government from the get-go.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I would be more circumspect in what you say if I were you.  What you are advocating constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.  You can be prosecuted just for making statements like this stupid person:
> http://aattp.org/teabagging-wisconsi...esident-obama/


Here, in fact, let me double down on my point, Graham.

*I advocate the immediate and forceful removal of a tyrannical government, always and in all cases.*

'Kay?

The instant the United States Government becomes "tyrannical", I will advocate and work for its immediate removal.

And I won't be alone, Graham. You and your ilk can try to threaten and intimidate people like me all you want, and at the end of the day it will have been a gigantic waste of your breath and effort.

No, Graham - *you're going to have to kill us*.

If you want us gone, so you can enjoy your tyrannical government without our interference, you're going to have to kill us.

Are you ready to do that?

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'm not sure I understand your correction but _ do_ _disagree with this: ....._ "'Course, that whole rationale kinda changed after the Civil War, during the Reconstruction, when the States (all of them) were made entirely subservient to the federal government."
> 
> *The Supremacy Clause*.... http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause  ....Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. ...
> was part of the original Constitution and made the states subservient to the federal government from the get-go.


Well, that's certainly true, the Supremacy Clause would indicate that the Constitution supercedes the individual State laws (and it also guarantees to all citizens certain particular boundaries on the State governments).

Problem is, the Constitution states very specifically *what are the limits on that federal law*, in other words, what can be "on" that list that supercedes State law. The Constitution is quite clear - it says: these things (list) are in the federal domain, and *anything that's not on the list belongs to the States and to the People*.

Therefore, if FedGov magically conjures up a new "law" that's not on the list, that law is *un-Constitutional*, and it should be either ignored or actively disobeyed, depending on the severity with which it impacts the States and the People.

FedGov is not allowed to grab power, Devil. They're simply not allowed to do that. To the extent that they do, they're violating their own law.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-24-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Well, that's certainly true, the Supremacy Clause would indicate that the Constitution supercedes the individual State laws (and it also guarantees to all citizens certain particular boundaries on the State governments).
> 
> Problem is, the Constitution states very specifically *what are the limits on that federal law*, in other words, what can be "on" that list that supercedes State law. The Constitution is quite clear - it says: these things (list) are in the federal domain, and *anything that's not on the list belongs to the States and to the People*.
> 
> Therefore, if FedGov magically conjures up a new "law" that's not on the list, that law is *un-Constitutional*, and it should be either ignored or actively disobeyed, depending on the severity with which it impacts the States and the People.
> 
> FedGov is not allowed to grab power, Devil. They're simply not allowed to do that. To the extent that they do, they're violating their own law.


But legally (and that's really all that matters) every law is ...ipso facto....Constitutional unless it's overruled by at least 5 of the 9 justices on the SC.
It is only their current *opinion* that sets the limits on federal law, not a decaying document that means nothing sans their interpretation.
Of course We the People can revolt against any decision they make but that revolt better be a majority of the people or it is doomed to fail.
(Right now we just have a vocal *minority* crying about rebellion because they lost a few elections.....but this to shall pass)

----------


## nonsqtr

> But legally (and that's really all that matters) every law is ...ipso facto....Constitutional unless it's overruled by at least 5 of the 9 justices on the SC.
> It is only their current *opinion* that sets the limits on federal law, not a decaying document that means nothing sans their interpretation.
> Of course We the People can revolt against any decision they make but that revolt better be a majority of the people or it is doomed to fail.


Well,,, ... so "for instance".... we have thousands upon thousands of people who chose to "ignore" the federal law regarding the Schedules, and they ended up in jail. There's gazillions of pot smokers still sitting in jail for crimes they committed years and years ago.

But now, we have everything from "medical marijuana" to outright legalization in some states, but the law isn't going to let any of those criminals go, because the law was on the books at the time they were convicted.

So, it seems to me, that recognizing the injustices that are involved, the People have used legitimate legal avenues to "mitigate and trump" the Federal power grab regarding these recreational drugs. Referenda are in play, as well as political and financial pressure upon the elected representatives. You don't really see anyone "taking up arms" to change the pot laws, yes?

On the other hand, if you ask any of these nutty "con-cons" what they're griping about, one of the things you'll always hear about is the Schedules (or some version of it) - even if the person griping about it is a teetotaler and is totally against the use of recreational drugs. There's an intuitive understanding that "the other guy's rights are being violated", and at the end of the day that becomes even more important than the idea that the good-for-nothings are pissing away their lives and even putting others in danger.

I don't necessarily see the rebellion thing as being linked to the partisan election thing. You know, like, right now, a few nutty vocal types (like me) are screaming about stuff, but what happens next is these ideas get incorporated into the mainstream at some low subliminal level, they kind of "hang around" until the next event when people can point and say "see? told ya".

The cat's out of the bag, the pattern is in the public domain, yes? So, next time you hear FedGov grabbing some new piece of political power, there will be an even more widespread reaction of "see? told ya" and the result of that is the viewpoint will gain currency and credibility.

Social changes take a long time, Devil. I really hope I don't live to see the war I've been predicting, it's gonna be a nasty one and the best thing I can think of doing right now is preparing my kids for what's coming. My seven year old daughter wants to be a photographer, it breaks my heart.

----------


## Devil505

> Well,,, ... so "for instance".... we have thousands upon thousands of people who chose to "ignore" the federal law regarding the Schedules, and they ended up in jail. There's gazillions of pot smokers still sitting in jail for crimes they committed years and years ago.
> 
> But now, we have everything from "medical marijuana" to outright legalization in some states, but the law isn't going to let any of those criminals go, because the law was on the books at the time they were convicted.
> 
> So, it seems to me, that recognizing the injustices that are involved, the People have used legitimate legal avenues to "mitigate and trump" the Federal power grab regarding these recreational drugs. Referenda are in play, as well as political and financial pressure upon the elected representatives. You don't really see anyone "taking up arms" to change the pot laws, yes?
> 
> On the other hand, if you ask any of these nutty "con-cons" what they're griping about, one of the things you'll always hear about is the Schedules (or some version of it) - even if the person griping about it is a teetotaler and is totally against the use of recreational drugs. There's an intuitive understanding that "the other guy's rights are being violated", and at the end of the day that becomes even more important than the idea that the good-for-nothings are pissing away their lives and even putting others in danger.
> 
> I don't necessarily see the rebellion thing as being linked to the partisan election thing. You know, like, right now, a few nutty vocal types (like me) are screaming about stuff, but what happens next is these ideas get incorporated into the mainstream at some low subliminal level, they kind of "hang around" until the next event when people can point and say "see? told ya".
> ...


The first half of your post shows why rebellion will not be necessary.
Societies change naturally over time and we've always been able to do that within the framework of law and our Constitution ....except for that "Unpleasantness" that occurred between 1861-1865......but I don't see that ever happening again.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The first half of your post shows why rebellion will not be necessary.
> Societies change naturally over time and we've always been able to do that within the framework of law and our Constitution ....except for that "Unpleasantness" that occurred between 1861-1865......but I don't see that ever happening again.


I hope not. I was using the example though, because pot smokers are only 10% of the population. So even if every pot smoker got royally pissed off to the point where they were willing to "take up arms", there still wouldn't be the political will to get the job done.

I kinda see this equation in practical terms. If you piss off 10% of the people, you might get away with it (with a little grumbling maybe), but if you piss off 51% of the people I don't think you're going to get away with it anymore.

You know, people like Congress, they can make whatever laws they want. The people in power, like this Mayor of Dallas for instance, they can do these things, that's why we put them in power, so they can - and we don't like to "circumscribe" their powers too much because we want them to be able to adequately function in cases of emergency and so on -

But at this point I think it seems obvious that there is (and has been) a "pattern of abuse", which I believe is what is being complained about. It's not the invididual "instances" of abuse, it's more the pattern that's the issue. The pot laws are just a little blip on the radar screen, they're a "fer instance", and they're important in the sense that there are many more examples of the same type of thing.

It's "power grabs", it's the idea of pulling laws out of your butt without anchoring them within Constitutional boundaries.

It's the idea that "the law is what the government says it is", that's what's being rebelled against. It's not the particular laws, it's the idea that our government thinks it can actually do something like that, just pull a law out of its butt and make it stick.

There's some kind of an evil wind blowing, Devil - I've been studying it for several years now and I still can't figure it out, but it's definitely there, the signs and symptoms are unmistakable. The only thing "significant" I've really learned so far, is that while we're distracted playing the red and blue game, this other game is going on. It's going on, and at some point in the past people expended a great deal of energy trying to hide it, but now it's pretty much out in the open (they're not even trying to hide it anymore).

I don't think the scumbaggery is "because of" the power grab, in fact I think it's quite the opposite. The scumbags will use any tool at their disposal, and a wide-open law is the low hanging fruit.

----------


## RMNIXON

> Excuse me but that is bullshit of the first order.  The exact reason for the second amendment was to empower the people to keep their government in check.  
> 
> *Don't know much about history do you?*



The Bill of Rights can be directly linked to abuse by British authorities. They were meant to protect each and every citizen against such abuses by any adopted Government. They had everything to do with overreaching basic individual rights, and hunting was not one of them. 

Why was there is a specific amendment about quartering soldiers in peoples homes right after the second? Because it was another abuse of the British. And following that unlawful search and seizures. 

No wonder our children lack a good historical education when these bloviating progressives are re-writing history.



Here is a link to a very scholarly paper on Gun Confiscation and the Revolution:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/a...n-control.html

----------


## Graham Garner

This is what you can look forward to:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ears-in-prison

----------


## nonsqtr

> This is what you can look forward to:
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ears-in-prison


You know Graham, in spite of your legal status you don't seem to know very much.

Any actionable threat has to be specific, it can't be generalized like the words we're using.

Stop trying to intimidate me, 'kay? I'm telling you that *your law has lost credibility*, and the more you sit here trying to defend it the more you lose credibility.

You want me to respect the law? Fine - then *give me something to respect!*

But when the shit stained morons give me "money is speech" and "buildings are people", I ain't respecting any of that *stupid moronic Orwellian bullshit*. 'Kay?

There is not an iota of respectability in "buildings are people". Any fucking two year old idiot can see for himself that buildings aren't people.

I'm very sorry you're locked in to representing such stupidity, Graham. If this is what our government's come down to, then I will present you with these very explicit words:

*I do not consent to be governed that way.*

Chew on that for a while, Mr. Foolish Lawyer.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> But legally (and that's really all that matters) every law is ...ipso facto....Constitutional unless it's overruled by at least 5 of the 9 justices on the SC.
> It is only their current *opinion* that sets the limits on federal law, not a decaying document that means nothing sans their interpretation.
> Of course We the People can revolt against any decision they make but that revolt better be a majority of the people or it is doomed to fail.
> (Right now we just have a vocal *minority* crying about rebellion because they lost a few elections.....but this to shall pass)


The American Revolution had the support of approximately 30 percent of the population of the Colonies at the time.  So, no, a majority is not required, merely a "well regulated militia".  Well regulated militia referred to a well trained, well organized and well armed group of citizen soldiers.  Not one burdened with rules and regulations imposed by the federal government.

----------

Sled Dog (10-23-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> I hope not. I was using the example though, because pot smokers are only 10% of the population. So even if every pot smoker got royally pissed off to the point where they were willing to "take up arms", there still wouldn't be the political will to get the job done.


Haven't got much time right now but pot *users* are only a fraction of the people who know that pot *legalization* is the right thing to do and is inevitable.
I'm thinking that within maybe ten years it will be a majority idea and then pols will adjust the laws to comply with the majority's wishes.
No rebellion needed!


I'll try to come back later to address the rest of your post. (something to look forward too!<G>)

----------


## Graham Garner

Dr. Felix Birdbiter:

  This is in response to your Post #31, _supra_, in which you quote the Declaration of Independence that you claim is "the foundation of the founding of this country." That is not correct.  It is the Constitution - not the Declaration of Independence -  that is the foundation of the United States as a nation under the rule of law, and the font of our individual rights and liberty by law.

  The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that  . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration."  The Cato Institute, _The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States_, Preface, p. 2 (2002).  This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record.  The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural (viz. "unalienable") rights. Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans who think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution. In truth, that’s not the way things are ordered; but people nevertheless persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer.  Then they complain their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed.  Indeed, such persons are the first to complain: "There ought’a be a law!"  Well, the truth is that there is.

----------


## Devil505

> The American Revolution had the support of approximately 30 percent of the population of the Colonies at the time.  So, no, a majority is not required, merely a "well regulated militia".  Well regulated militia referred to a well trained, well organized and well armed group of citizen soldiers.  Not one burdened with rules and regulations imposed by the federal government.


You're not really arguing that 70% of the people actively opposed independence and wanted to stay under British control, are you?

If so can we see a link please?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Dr. Felix Birdbiter:
> 
>   This is in response to your Post #31, _supra_, in which you quote the Declaration of Independence that you claim is "the foundation of the founding of this country." That is not correct.  It is the Constitution - not the Declaration of Independence -  that the foundation of the United States as a nation under the rule of law, and the font of our individual rights and liberty by law.
> 
>   The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that  . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration."  The Cato Institute, _The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States_, Preface, p. 2 (2002).  This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record.  The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural (viz. "unalienable") rights. Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans who think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution. In truth, that’s not the way things are ordered; but people nevertheless persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer.  Then they complain their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed.  Indeed, such persons are the first to complain: "There ought’a be a law!"  Well, the truth is that there is.


Listen to this shit.

This guy is not a conservative.

There is zero chance that Mr. Graham Garner is a political conservative.

You tell me - read the words and then tell me that's a conservative talking.

 :Dontknow: 

Looks to me like we have a wolf in sheep's clothing in our midst.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Sheldonna

> You're not really arguing that 70% of the people actively opposed independence and wanted to stay under British control, are you?
> 
> If so can we see a link please?


No, that's not what he said, Dev.  Creative reading comprehension much?

Off topic.....got a joke (an old one) for ya, you being ex-DEA and all.....




> A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas , and talked with an old rancher.
> 
> He told the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs."
> 
> The rancher said, "Okay , but don't go in that field over there.", as he pointed out the location.
> 
> The DEA officer verbally exploded saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me !" Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher. "See this badge?! This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land! No questions asked! Do you understand ?!!" 
> 
> The rancher nodded politely, apologized, and went about his chores. A short time later, the old rancher heard loud screams, looked up, and saw the DEA officer running for his life, being chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull...... With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it seemed likely that he'd sure enough get gored before he reached safety. The officer was clearly terrified.
> ...

----------

nonsqtr (10-21-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, that's not what he said, Dev.  Creative reading comprehension much?
> 
> Off topic.....got a joke (an old one) for ya, you being ex-DEA and all.....


Ha ha - good one Sheldonna!

I got nothing against the feds until they start stepping on my toes. I'll cooperate with them fully and 100% until it starts costing me. Where I am right now, is I've been paying into the system for *forty damn years*, and I'm nearing retirement age. What I *don't* want to hear from those fuckers is "sorry, we're broke, there's no more money".

*Forty years*, I've been paying in to make sure all the poor people get fed and clothed, and all the highways get maintained, and FEMA's Johnny on the Spot whenever there's an earthquake or an Ebola outbreak.

Just about 30% of my income, for forty years. I could do a little quickie math, let's see, at 100k a year average that would be about 4 mil, times 30% that would be about 1.2 million dollars. So in other words, I've given my country about 12,000 times as much as I have to my name right now. (And that's because of a deadly illness from which I'd have a hard time recovering without some level of financial assistance).

So now, if I go to my government in my debilitated condition, and I tell them, "Sam, I need an X-Ray. I can't walk, I'm in so much pain I need a doctor to look at me" - and then Uncle Sam goes "sorry pal, you have more than 600 dollars in a bank account and therefore you don't qualify for any federal assistance" -

AFTER my federally mandated insurance company has just drained me for 375,000 dollars worth of co-pays and "my share", you know....

The point being, there are millions of people like this! They've been paying into the system their whole damn lives and now the government's telling them there's no money left for the X-ray.

And meanwhile to make matters worse we're getting the snow job about ObamaCare, the truth of which was revealed in this morning's WSJ: insurance rates for the bronze plan are climbing by 27% in California next year.

You know, it occurs to me that it the federal government were actually doing its job instead of traipsing around the world acting like a cop, we wouldn't have any of these problems and we'd be in much better financial shape.

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> You're not really arguing that 70% of the people actively opposed independence and wanted to stay under British control, are you?
> 
> If so can we see a link please?



Actually, it was, according to current information, about 20% for, 20% against and 60% fence sitters.  Many of the fence sitters joined with the Patriots in the long run but there were still a large number who did not care.  

http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp

----------

Devil505 (10-21-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> No, that's not what he said, Dev.  Creative reading comprehension much?


ok...here's what he said:



> The American Revolution had the support of approximately 30 percent of the population of the Colonies at the time.


If only 30% supported it ......the words mean that 70% didn't support it, right?









> Off topic.....got a joke (an old one) for ya, you being ex-DEA and all.....


LOL...good joke but everyone knows that agent must have been FBI not DEA!  :Tongue20:

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Dr. Felix Birdbiter:
> 
>   This is in response to your Post #31, _supra_, in which you quote the Declaration of Independence that you claim is "the foundation of the founding of this country." That is not correct.  It is the Constitution - not the Declaration of Independence -  that is the foundation of the United States as a nation under the rule of law, and the font of our individual rights and liberty by law.
> 
>   The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that  . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration."  The Cato Institute, _The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States_, Preface, p. 2 (2002).  This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record.  The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution. To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural (viz. "unalienable") rights. Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans who think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution. In truth, that’s not the way things are ordered; but people nevertheless persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer.  Then they complain their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed.  Indeed, such persons are the first to complain: "There ought’a be a law!"  Well, the truth is that there is.



Are you joking??  Reverting to legalese in a frigging internet debate forum????  How droll,  While the Declaration of Independence was specifically about the Crown it's entire premise was that men were ordained by God to be free and there were certain rights associated with that freedom.  

I don't know who you are and what your background really is but as far as I am concerned you are as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Are you joking??  Reverting to legalese in a frigging internet debate forum????  How droll,  While the Declaration of Independence was specifically about the Crown it's entire premise was that men were ordained by God to be free and there were certain rights associated with that freedom.  
> 
> I don't know who you are and what your background really is but as far as I am concerned you are as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.


It's hard to get one by the true political conservatives, yes?  :Wink: 

It's because we have a "gut" reaction to this kind of stuff, we can smell it a mile away! We get a "visceral" reaction, almost like it turns our stomachs or something.

There's a really very serious problem in our law today, and that is the fundamental assumptions are self contradictory. No body of law can survive for very long under those conditions. Something will have to give, eventually - and I'd like to make sure it's the assholes that give and not the good People of the United States.

----------


## Victory

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.  That's not the way we defend our rights in America. Our rights and liberty is maintained by law, not guns. It is the duty of the citizenry and the government it elects to uphold the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. In this, we do not exercise our constitutional rights as citizens by armed insurrection; we do so peacefully at the ballot box and in the courts of law. Under the Constitution, the mechanism for effecting change is through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.


How do you explain the success of the Battle of Athens, TN?

You don't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I sure do.  awesome.

----------


## Graham Garner

Mr. nonsqtr:

  After suffering your insults and incivility, the only positive thing I can say to you is that your moniker "nonsqtr" - an abbreviation of _non sequitur_ (Lat. an illogical statement or conclusion) - aptly describes you posts.

  Good day to you, sir.

  Graham Garner

----------


## Victory

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.


You realize, I'm sure, 'cuz yer shmart, that there were discussions in the Constitutional Congress between our Founders that go exactly against this crap you wrote here, right?

How is it that a guy so "learned" in matters of positive law and existential philosophy missed the very discussions that these philosophies are against?

----------


## Victory

> Listen to this shit.
> 
> This guy is not a conservative.
> 
> There is zero chance that Mr. Graham Garner is a political conservative.
> 
> You tell me - read the words and then tell me that's a conservative talking.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think he ever pretended to be one.  Look at his fucking avatar.  Jean Paul Sartre ain't no conservative.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Mr. nonsqtr:
> 
>   After suffering your insults and incivility, the only positive thing I can say to you is that your moniker "nonsqtr" - an abbreviation of _non sequitur_ (Lat. an illogical statement or conclusion) - aptly describes you posts.
> 
>   Good day to you, sir.
> 
>   Graham Garner


LMAO!!!

First this clown wants to tell me how to live my life, now he's running away in helpless tears.

You think I was insulting you, Mr. Foolish Lawyer? I wasn't - it's your idiotic and dangerous political ideas that got my attention.

I don't know you from a hole in the wall, friend - and I don't particularly care either, as far as I'm concerned you're "just another misguided US citizen".

But when you want to come to my plate and put your bullshit shit-for-brains "authority" on it, then I'm going to take the plate and its contents and hurl them unmercifully back into your face with the maximum possible force.

Are we clear, *sir*? We understand each other, correct?

Don't do it again, and if you do my verbal response will be many times as harsh.

I will not countenance my government conjuring up the law. That will not happen on my watch.

And a good day to you sir, my fellow citizen.

----------


## Victory

> The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our government is without any foundation.


What if I gave you foundational arguments from the Constitutional Congress?  Would you drop the Progressive bullshit?

Or would you invent new bullshit to shore up your eroding bullshit?

----------


## Victory

> "We have met the enemy, and he is us."


Who is this "us?"  You got a mouse in your pocket?

----------


## Green Man

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.


Empower? Not sure what you mean. But firearms are a tool, a means to achieve an end, whether that end be the enjoyment of target practice, hunting, or self-defense.

----------


## Green Man

> One more time: The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction armed resistance against the government.


It's intended to allow the people to defend the government, not resist the government. To defend the government, and the people, against tyrants and usurpers.

----------

Devil505 (10-21-2014),Graham Garner (10-21-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

You want the "conservative" viewpoint on the Second Amendment? Consider this quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was probably the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court for the last 50 years:

"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." 
- Warren Burger, _Parade Magazine_ (January 14, 1990).

And, how about this statement by Circuit Judge Robert Bork, renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "originalism" in its interpretation:

"[The] National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding."
- Robert H. Bork, _Distinguished Lecture Series_, UC Irvine, (March14, 1989). 

As for the ruling of the Supreme_ Court District of Columbia v. Heller_ that the Second Amendment encompasses an individual right, it can only be construed as a "liberal" interpretation (witness the judicial gymnastics applied to bend and stretch the plain meaning of the words). Certainly, it is not a "conservative" view by any judicial standard. Likewise, it could hardly be an "originalist" interpretation either.

----------


## Victory

> BS!
> 
> You guys keep pretending the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment don't exist.
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> *
> A child could read that sentence and understand the people's right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia for the defense of this nation. (luckily for me the SCOTUS disagrees with me)


You guys keep pretending you don't know "the militia" is you and me, not the National Guard.

----------

JustPassinThru (10-21-2014),RMNIXON (10-21-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I would be more circumspect in what you say if I were you.  What you are advocating constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.  You can be prosecuted just for making statements like this stupid person:
> http://aattp.org/teabagging-wisconsi...esident-obama/


So talking about the Battle of Athens makes me subject to prosecution?

Should I be afraid, Graham?  I'm not.  I'm the one on the side of the truth.

You still have no idea what that is, do you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You're welcome.

----------

nonsqtr (10-21-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> And, YES, defense against a government that breaks the bounds of the Constitution and acts in lawless, tyrannical fashion against the citizens.


I would say people who infiltrate the government and try to destroy it by violating the constitution. The second amendment is designed to protect our system of governance from such people.

----------


## fyrenza

> I would be more circumspect in what you say if I were you.  What you are advocating constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.  You can be prosecuted just for making statements like this stupid person:
> http://aattp.org/teabagging-wisconsi...esident-obama/


Is ^*THIS*^ some sort of not-so-veiled *threat*, ffs?!?

Better keep it in your pants, @Graham Garner ~

where "it" = your ass.

----------


## Victory

> I would say people who infiltrate the government and try to destroy it by violating the constitution. The second amendment is designed to protect our system of governance from such people.


Yes.  You should copy and paste this to the tail end of your post that Graham thanked.

----------


## nonsqtr

Just to show you how misguided some of these people can be, I'll say this: if I ever woke up one morning to discover Islamist terrorists at my door (literally or figuratively), I would be among the first to pick up arms and join the fight.

Not because they're big bad "Islamist terrorists", but because they're threatening my Constitution and my country. These fuckers want me to follow "Sharia Law" - some other kind of law, one which I had no participation in making and which some shit-for-brains asshole simply wants to pull out of his butt and ascribe "authority" to.

See, so, I view Graham's protestations in exactly the same way I'd view someone who was trying to impose Sharia Law on me.

No one imposes any law on me, pal. The only way you're going to make me behave is to get me to voluntarily subscribe to the laws that you want to put in place. Any other method or mechanism will get you *the exact opposite of what you want*.

I will not abide by any law that I had no part in making.

Y'know who first said that? Chinese President Xi to US President Obama.

That musta stung, I hope our Liar-In-Chief was awfully damn embarrassed being lecture on democracy by the president of a Communist country.

Constitutional lawyer indeed!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## RMNIXON

> I would say people who infiltrate the government and try to destroy it by violating the constitution. The second amendment is designed to protect our system of governance from such people.




We already know who the Gun Grabbers are.

The people who foster Revolution of the progressive kind, then go down hard on the people afterward in order to prevent counter-revolution. Historically this has already happened.

----------

goosey (10-21-2014),Green Man (10-21-2014),JustPassinThru (10-21-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> You want the "conservative" viewpoint on the Second Amendment? Consider this quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was probably the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court for the last 50 years:
> 
> "If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." 
> - Warren Burger, _Parade Magazine_ (January 14, 1990).
> 
> And, how about this statement by Circuit Judge Robert Bork, renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "originalism" in its interpretation:
> 
> "[The] National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding."
> - Robert H. Bork, _Distinguished Lecture Series_, UC Irvine, (March14, 1989). 
> ...


Thanks for what appears to be reasonable opinions on the purpose of the second amendment.

One must realize that in the beginning our central government was very small and poorly funded to support a standing army, so they depended on
volunteers as needed to do the job.  I wonder, did the British citizens at the time have access to personal firearms?

----------


## Green Man

When the states established their union, they delegated few, specific powers to the government of the union. One power that was never delegated was any power to restrict what guns the citizens of the several states could have. Therefore, the federal government has no such power. With or without the 2nd amendment, the federal government would still not have any such power.

----------

nonsqtr (10-21-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> So you're completely clueless about the Battle of Athens, TN.  How is it that a guy who chose a philosopher for an avatar resists reading so much?  Isn't that kinda out of whack?


Oh mighty one do tell us about the battle of Athens. He is right and you know damned well he is. If you think not then try your luck at it.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Suzanna Gratia Hupp is awesome. The exchange between her and the CNN air head is like watching an argument between a alligator and a duck. Hupp is the clear winner as usual.


Agreed.




> No, that's not how it works.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


Disagreed, but if one points a gun they better be ready to use it and die for one's cause. (see Nathan Hale below)  

You act like "the government" is God.  It isn't.  It's a conglomeration of citizen's doing as stated in the Declaration of Independence: 

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._

We don't serve "the government".  The government serves us.


-----------------------  Nathan Hale story -----------
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/hale.htm
_Nathan Hale was a lieutenant in the Continental Army. In his early twenties, Hale had worked as a schoolteacher before the Revolution. In late September 1776 he volunteered to cross the British lines and travel to Long Island in order to gather intelligence. Unfortunately, his mission was soon discovered and he was captured by the British. Taken to General Howe's headquarters (commander of the British forces) in New York, the young spy was interrogated and executed on September 22. Word of the execution was brought to General Washington's headquarters shortly after by a British officer carrying a flag of truce. Captain William Hull of the Continental Army was present and recalled the event:

"In a few days an officer came to our camp, under a flag of truce, and informed Hamilton, then a captain of artillery, but afterwards the aid of General Washington, that Captain Hale had been arrested within the British lines condemned as a spy, and executed that morning.I learned the melancholy particulars from this officer, who was present at his execution and seemed touched by the circumstances attending it.He said that Captain Hale had passed through their army, both of Long Island and York Island. That he had procured sketches of the fortifications, and made memoranda of their number and different positions. When apprehended, he was taken before Sir William Howe, and these papers, found concealed about his person, betrayed his intentions. He at once declared his name, rank in the American army, and his object in coming within the British lines.

Sir William Howe, without the form of a trial, gave orders for his execution the following morning. He was placed in the custody of the Provost Marshal, who was a refugee and hardened to human suffering and every softening sentiment of the heart. Captain Hale, alone, without sympathy or support, save that from above, on the near approach of death asked for a clergyman to attend him. It was refused. He then requested a Bible; that too was refused by his inhuman jailer.

'On the morning of his execution,' continued the officer, 'my station was near the fatal spot, and I requested the Provost Marshal to permit the prisoner to sit in my marquee, while he was making the necessary preparations. Captain Hale entered: he was calm, and bore himself with gentle dignity, in the consciousness of rectitude and high intentions. He asked for writing materials, which I furnished him: he wrote two letters, one to his mother and one to a brother officer.' He was shortly after summoned to the gallows. But a few persons were around him, yet his, characteristic dying words were remembered. He said, 'I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'"_

----------


## Hansel

> When the states established their union, they delegated few, specific powers to the government of the union. One power that was never delegated was any power to restrict what guns the citizens of the several states could have. Therefore, the federal government has no such power. With or without the 2nd amendment, the federal government would still not have any such power.


Could it be implied in some manner?

----------


## Hansel

> You guys keep pretending you don't know "the militia" is you and me, not the National Guard.


A well regulated militia is you and me?  The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a well regulated militia.  A bunch of idiots with boy toys is not  well regulated militia IMO.

For that matter there  are much more effective ways to counter a despotic government than using small arms.  The partisans of WW II proved that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A well regulated militia is you and me?  The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a well regulated militia.  A bunch of idiots with boy toys is not  well regulated militia IMO.


It's not, but that isn't the point is it?  It's that annoying comma the Leftist Nanny Staters hate so much.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2007/859

While arm-chair and jailhouse lawyers love to debate the specific print of a law or Constitutional quote, the Supreme Court knows that deeper knowledge is required.  Thus why they research the intent and debates made about each and every law, amendment, clause or other statement.

Leftists, habitually anti-military until they need them, want the Second Amendment to mean government controlled military.  As the facts prove, that is a wrongful assumption since the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven it doesn't say that.

----------


## Green Man

> Could it be implied in some manner?


No. All of congress' powers are enumerated, and, per the 10th, what is not given is retained by the states or the people. 

Only the powers specifically given may be legally exercised.

----------


## Devil505

> No. All of congress' powers are enumerated, and, per the 10th, what is not given is retained by the states or the people. 
> 
> Only the powers specifically given may be legally exercised.


You are wrong.

*Anything* that at least five of the nine justices of the SC feel the Constitution says or even implies becomes the supreme law of the land unless a future court or amendment overturns them.
Is the SC always right/moral?....*Hell no!*
Are their decisions always the law?...*Yes.
*
Please don't argue philosophy here because the law is unequivicable.

----------


## OptimaFemina

Believing in God empowers people.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Oh mighty one do tell us about the battle of Athens. He is right and you know damned well he is. If you think not then try your luck at it.


See?

This is what our government has become. There is no logic left, no reasonable rationale. Every argument that involves political agreement invariably ends up in the "because I'm the daddy" mode. People attempting to pull "authority" out of their butts with no logical rationale and no reasonable justification other than "because we're the government and we say so".

For those who were following the earlier pointed discussion, I will draw this parallel:

Asking me to adhere to an *un-Constitutional* "law" (even if it's part of the US Code) is the *exact same thing* as an Islamist terrorist asking me to adhere to the Sharia Law.

In both cases, someone is pulling 'authority' out of their butts, with absolutely no justification other than their say-so, and no mechanism whatsoever for popular participation. 

In both cases, the law they're asking me to adhere to is *not part of the Constitution*, it's not a part of *MY* law and therefore I won't obey it.

And I don't care what the fucking Islamic Imams have to say about it, and I don't care what the Supreme fucking Morons have to say about it either.

If the Constitution says "the federal government shall not infringe" and it attempts to do so anyway, then its actions are *illegal and un-Constitutional*.

I absolutely *demand* that my elected weasels adhere to the same law they're asking me to adhere to. If they're saying I can't carry a gun, then I'll say "neither can they", which means no more firearms for any federal law enforcement official, and every vote I cast from that point forward will be to de-fund the fuckers till they can't even afford a pencil and a notebook.

They're asking me to subscribe to a law that *I didn't agree to and had no part in making*, and they're pulling "authority" out of their butts as the rationale for why I should agree to obey.

That is exactly like Sharia Law. Exactly. Same goddamn thing.

Only, it's not *MY* law and I'm not going to obey. Because the people who put it into place were breaking their own law when they did it.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> You are wrong.
> 
> *Anything* that at least five of the nine justices of the SC feel the Constitution says or even implies becomes the supreme law of the land unless a future court or amendment overturns them.
> Is the SC always right/moral?....*Hell no!*
> Are their decisions always the law?...*Yes.
> *
> Please don't argue philosophy here because the law is unequivicable.


Wrong. The constitution makes it plain: "*This* Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."

*This* constitution. Not what the supreme court says.

----------


## Devil505

> Wrong. The constitution makes it plain: "*This* Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."
> 
> *This* constitution. Not what the supreme court says.


Sorry...The Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.
(name a single exception)

----------


## Green Man

> Sorry...The Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.
> (name a single exception)


The constitution says what is written in the constitution.

----------


## Victory

> Oh mighty one do tell us about the battle of Athens. He is right and you know damned well he is. If you think not then try your luck at it.


Fuck me!  I already gave you a link.  What more do you want?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I would say people who infiltrate the government and try to destroy it by violating the constitution. The second amendment is designed to protect our system of governance from such people.


Would that not include government functionaries that ignore the Constitution?

----------


## nonsqtr

> You are wrong.
> 
> *Anything* that at least five of the nine justices of the SC feel the Constitution says or even implies becomes the supreme law of the land unless a future court or amendment overturns them.
> Is the SC always right/moral?....*Hell no!*
> Are their decisions always the law?...*Yes.
> *
> Please don't argue philosophy here because the law is unequivicable.


I agree with Green Man.

Anything that does not adhere to our Constitution is *not the law*, and it should be either ignored or actively disobeyed as circumstances demand.

It is not politically acceptable to have a self-contradictory law. Such a thing is not *Justice*, any self-contradictory legal system can by definition not be "just".

FedGov dug its own grave when it made itself lord and master of the States.

Now they're stuck with it. They're lord and master and they have to live with it.

Betcha that's gotta hurt.

But I'll be damned if *I'm* the one who's gonna take the fall for it.

Nope, no sirree Bob. Me and millions of other "true political conservatives" (and even some liberals from time to time) have a *much better idea*, and in fact it's the same idea our Founders had way back when.

Our time will come again, you'll see. At the end of day, when all the liberals' "newfangled" hare-brained schemes have been tried and exhausted, the world will come to the very same political realizations that our Founders did. Call it "conservative", call it "classical liberal" or whatever you want, but at the end of the day it's the only thing that works. Pulling power and authority out of your butt never works. The best that'll get you is a lifetime of resentment (and maybe it'll be a short life too, depending on how many people you piss off in the process).

You can not stop people from killing each other "by force". However you can engage them to do so voluntarily. When the voluntary part leaves the equation, it's time to head for the hills and regroup.

If I'm going to adhere to the law, it'll be because it's a good law and it's in my enlightened self-interest to do so. I will voluntarily adhere to it if works - and "work" is defined operationally in terms of justice. If the law promotes justice, then it's a good law. But taking away peoples' property or forcing them into unwanted private contracts or forbidding them from protecting themselves from mortal danger, those are not good laws - and anyway they're all un-Constitutional and they all result in *in-Justice* rather than justice.

----------

Green Man (10-21-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Thanks for what appears to be reasonable opinions on the purpose of the second amendment.
> 
> One must realize that in the beginning our central government was very small and poorly funded to support a standing army, so they depended on
> volunteers as needed to do the job.  I wonder, did the British citizens at the time have access to personal firearms?


There was much debate regarding a standing army as opposed to a militia, i.e. an army of citizen soldiers.  Elbridge Gerry stated "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it presents a temptation for foreign adventure".  Maintaining a standing army had nothing to do with funding, but rather keeping it in our own pants and not engaging in foreign intrigue.  The Constitution provides for a standing army that can only be funded for two years at a time.  At the time a Navy was a bigger advantage to any potential attacks on the country.

----------


## Green Man

> Would that not include government functionaries that ignore the Constitution?


Of course. People can only infiltrate the government by becoming government functionaries.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> A well regulated militia is you and me?  The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a well regulated militia.  A bunch of idiots with boy toys is not  well regulated militia IMO.
> 
> For that matter there  are much more effective ways to counter a despotic government than using small arms.  The partisans of WW II proved that.



And yet it was those self same militias that fought in the Civil War and also in the First World War.  For most of our history our army was made up of volunteers in the various state militias for the most part.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No. All of congress' powers are enumerated, and, per the 10th, what is not given is retained by the states or the people. 
> 
> Only the powers specifically given may be legally exercised.


Why is that so hard to accept by the leftist?  Could it be they don't really believe in the Constitution???  Ah, no, they wouldn't do that.

----------


## Devil505

> The constitution says what is written in the constitution.


So why are most SC decisions split if the wording is so clear?
Answer:...The words are obviously not clear and need interpretation.

*Amendment I*

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
_
Why is slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater and sedition against the law then?
What does "Congress shall make no law" mean
Why are "fighting words" and some obscenity illegal?.
What does "Abridging" mean in law?

----------


## Green Man

> Why is that so hard to accept by the leftist?  Could it be they don't really believe in the Constitution???  Ah, no, they wouldn't do that.


Of course they don't. They believe in the supreme federal government, not the constitution.

----------


## Devil505

> I agree with Green Man.
> 
> Anything that does not adhere to our Constitution is *not the law*, and it should be either ignored or actively disobeyed as circumstances demand.


Agreed....but the *only* entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
That is unarguable legal fact.

----------


## Green Man

> So why are most SC decisions split if the wording is so clear?
> Answer:...The words are obviously not clear and need interpretation.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> _
> 
> Why is slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater and sedition against the law then?


Slander and yelling fire in a crowded theater are the responsibilities of the states, not the federal government. 

Sedition laws are clearly prohibited by the 1st amendment. Congress shall make no law.




> What does "Congress shall make no law" mean


That congress shall make no law.




> Why are "fighting words" and some obscenity illegal?.


Illegal per state law. The federal government was never delegated power to make laws regarding fighting words or obscenity.




> What does "Abridging" mean in law?


To curtail.

----------


## Devil505

> Of course they don't. They believe in the supreme federal government, not the constitution.


No...I believe in the law.

----------


## Green Man

> Agreed....but the *only* entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
> That is unarguable legal fact.


Where does it say this in the constitution?

----------


## Green Man

> No...I believe in the law.


No, you believe in the decrees of the supreme court, which you regard as the law.

----------


## Devil505

> Sedition laws are clearly prohibited by the 1st amendment. Congress shall make no law.


OK...let's use the federal law against sedition:




U.S. Code› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385


*18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government*

prev | nextWhoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.









That is a federal law that *you* claim is unconstitutional but the SC says you're wrong.....and they win.

(suppose you felt the federal laws against bank robbery were clearly unconstitutional?...How do you think that defense would work out for you in court?)

----------


## Devil505

> Where does it say this in the constitution?


Where does the Constitution *specifically* authorize an air force?
The Atomic Energy Commission?
The FBI?
The FAA? (the authority of air marshals to arrest you?)

The idea that we... in 2014.... are bound by only the words that appear in an almost 300 year old document is as absurd as the idea that those words require no interpretation.

----------


## Green Man

> OK...let's use the federal law against sedition:
> 
> U.S. Code› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385
> 
> *18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government*
> 
> prev | nextWhoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
> Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
> Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
> ...


They win what? 




> (suppose you felt the federal laws against bank robbery were clearly unconstitutional?...How do you think that defense would work out for you in court?)


Why would I be in court for having that opinion?

----------


## Devil505

> No, you believe in the decrees of the supreme court, which you regard as the law.


The decrees of the SC *are the law* and the jails are full of people who disagree with them. (they are not always right but they are always the law)

----------


## Devil505

> Why would I be in court for having that opinion?


I don't have time or inclination for silly games but I'll play one time:
OK....because you believe the laws against bank robbery are unconstitutional...you rob a bank and get caught...that's why you're in court.

----------


## Green Man

> Where does the Constitution *specifically* authorize an air force?


Nowhere.




> The Atomic Energy Commission?


Nowhere.




> The FBI?


Nowhere.




> The FAA? (the authority of air marshals to arrest you?)


Nowhere.

----------


## Green Man

> The decrees of the SC *are the law* and the jails are full of people who disagree with them. (they are not always right but they are always the law)


No, the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

----------


## Green Man

> I don't have time or inclination for silly games but I'll play one time:
> OK....because you believe the laws against bank robbery are unconstitutional...you rob a bank...that's why you're in court.


No, I don't rob a bank because that's illegal in my state. (It also happens to be wrong, so I wouldn't do it anyway.)

----------


## Devil505

> No, I don't rob a bank because that's illegal in my state. (It also happens to be wrong, so I wouldn't do it anyway.)


Why is the federal law still on the books since you've declared it unconstitutional?
Why can the FBI legally arrest you even if your state doesn't ....if you change your mind and rob a bank anyway?

----------


## Green Man

> Why is the federal law still on the books since you've declared it unconstitutional?


Because usurpers have infiltrated the federal government and become government functionaries, and they enforce such unconstitutional laws.

----------


## Devil505

> Because usurpers have infiltrated the federal government and become government functionaries, and they enforce such unconstitutional laws.


Nice chatting with you.

----------


## Sheldonna

> ok...here's what he said:
> 
> If only 30% supported it ......the words mean that 70% didn't support it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is not an automatic 'fact' or assumption that the other 70% didn't support the revolution.  And he never said what you inferred from his comment.

As for the FBI vs. DEA claim.....isn't that being a little bit of a snob?  lol  I always thought the FBI would be a little less....um....emotionally demonstrative when being attacked and chased by a bull.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-21-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Ha ha - good one Sheldonna!
> 
> I got nothing against the feds until they start stepping on my toes. I'll cooperate with them fully and 100% until it starts costing me. Where I am right now, is I've been paying into the system for *forty damn years*, and I'm nearing retirement age. What I *don't* want to hear from those fuckers is "sorry, we're broke, there's no more money".
> 
> *Forty years*, I've been paying in to make sure all the poor people get fed and clothed, and all the highways get maintained, and FEMA's Johnny on the Spot whenever there's an earthquake or an Ebola outbreak.
> 
> Just about 30% of my income, for forty years. I could do a little quickie math, let's see, at 100k a year average that would be about 4 mil, times 30% that would be about 1.2 million dollars. So in other words, I've given my country about 12,000 times as much as I have to my name right now. (And that's because of a deadly illness from which I'd have a hard time recovering without some level of financial assistance).
> 
> So now, if I go to my government in my debilitated condition, and I tell them, "Sam, I need an X-Ray. I can't walk, I'm in so much pain I need a doctor to look at me" - and then Uncle Sam goes "sorry pal, you have more than 600 dollars in a bank account and therefore you don't qualify for any federal assistance" -
> ...


Tell me about it!  And it's not 'just' that the fed gov is going around acting like the world's cop....they are agenda-driven helping America's enemies now, instead of just previously helping our allies.  This bullshit of training, funding and supporting the "enemy of our enemies" has got to end.  We can't afford it.  But now we've got a ""leader"" that is hellbent on breaking us in every way possible.  

People like you that have paid into the system all your lives ...and quite a lot....are the ones really getting the shaft.  As soon as Obamacare fully kicks in and the death panels and bureaucrats get done deciding that Granny and Gramps aren't worth getting that critical operation or procedure (they've already been too much of a drain on the system as it is)..... it will be all over but the crying for most Americans.  Americans will then get the government they wanted, voted for and deserve when that happens.  And by that I include everyone, myself, as well, since none of us have stepped up to try to stop this ongoing travesty that IS the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

----------


## Devil505

> It is not an automatic 'fact' or assumption that the other 70% didn't support the revolution.  And he never said what you inferred from his comment.


You're right.






> As for the FBI vs. DEA claim.....isn't that being a little bit of a snob?  lol  I always thought the FBI would be a little less....um....emotionally demonstrative when being attacked and chased by a bull.


LOL...FBI are wimps! (they come in in their suits and ties after the crime and interview witnesses....We wear jeans and dirty T-shirts and have to get involved in the crime posing as fellow bad guys. (being a bit facetious here but there is great rivalry between federal LE agencies ......and everyone hates the FBI)

----------


## Sheldonna

> You're right.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...FBI are wimps! (they come in in their suits and ties after the crime and interview witnesses....We wear jeans and dirty T-shirts and have to get involved in the crime posing as fellow bad guys. (being a bit facetious here but there is great rivalry between federal LE agencies)


Yeah, it's the same kind of rivalry as in the different branches of the military.  My dad was naval air, two of his brothers were army and only one, the youngest, was in the marines.  They had quite a good-natured rivalry going on for decades.  And they were all lucky enough to live through the war unscathed (at least physically).

----------


## Devil505

> Yeah, it's the same kind of rivalry as in the different branches of the military.  My dad was naval air, two of his brothers were army and only one, the youngest, was in the marines.  They had quite a good-natured rivalry going on for decades.  And they were all lucky enough to live through the war unscathed (at least physically).


So your dad was an aviator? (they hate to be called pilots in the Navy)
Sounds like you have a family to be proud of!

----------


## Sheldonna

> So your dad was an aviator? (they hate to be called pilots in the Navy)
> Sounds like you have a family to be proud of!


Well, he did fly but during the war, he was mostly a turret gunner.  He retired Navy.  Guess he liked it.  I did get to go on an aircraft carrier while he was in.  It was so huge it boggled the mind (I was only about ten or eleven years old at the time).

----------


## Devil505

> Well, he did fly but during the war, he was mostly a turret gunner.  He retired Navy.  Guess he liked it.  I did get to go on an aircraft carrier while he was in.  It was so huge it boggled the mind (I was only about ten or eleven years old at the time).


My uncle was the flight deck officer on the light aircraft carrier Belleau Wood in the Pacific during WWII and his ship was hit by a kamikaze.

I was in ROTC in college in the 1960's but decided that federal law enforcement was the way I wanted to serve my country.
Went right to work for the IRS after college in 1969.

----------


## Sheldonna

> My uncle was the flight deck officer on the light aircraft carrier Belleau Wood in the Pacific during WWII and his ship was hit by a kamikaze.
> 
> I was in ROTC in college in the 1960's but decided that federal law enforcement was the way I wanted to serve my country.
> Went right to work for the IRS after college in 1969.


You're a government man all the way, then.  I never wanted to work for 'the government'.  But...I did once consider taking a job at Brown & Root (later became Haliburton), just because it was 5 min. away from my house.  I just hate the structure and BS of large entities and corporations like energy/oil&gas corps.   Too much of a contrarian, I guess.  I put up with it for as long as I had to ...to get that paycheck.  But I never enjoyed it as much as I have enjoyed working for smaller companies.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Agreed....but the *only* entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
> That is unarguable legal fact.


Actually its not unarguable.  It was an on going debate for several years regarding the role of the Supreme Court.  We now accept the SC as the final word but that wasn't always the case and there is nothing in the Constitution that states  the SC has that status.

----------


## Victory

> Is ^*THIS*^ some sort of not-so-veiled *threat*, ffs?!?
> 
> Better keep it in your pants, @Graham Garner ~
> 
> where "it" = your ass.


Sounds like one to me.

Translation:  You best cower down to the Almighty State.  Best know your place, you little shit.

Fuck that.  I'm not kidding when I say his attitude is no shit "un-American."

----------


## nonsqtr

> OK...let's use the federal law against sedition:
> 
> 
> U.S. Code Title 18  Part I  Chapter 115  § 2385
> 
> 
> *18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government*
> 
> prev | nextWhoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
> ...


ROFL!!!

Devil, do you realize that using these criteria, *every single US President since Harry Truman* would be unquestionably guilty of sedition?

This is clearly, obviously, a "do as I say and not as I do" situation, and from any sane legal standpoint such a situation is unacceptable.

Devil, the law can not contradict itself! If it does, then there's a problem and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible! Wouldn't you say? I mean, what would a prosecutor do with that, if one law says "this is a crime" but the other law says "this is perfectly okay"? That's exactly the kind of thing that makes prosecutors tear their hair out, isn't it? They try to go to court with the felony but the judge finds some other obscure law to nix it with.... y'know...  :Dontknow: 

There's a connotation of "equal protection" in this equation, isn't there? Because if the law is inconsistent then it's being applied differently in one situation versus another, or for one group of people versus another, and that's not equal protection. Equal protection connotes some element of "consistency" in the law, doesn't it?

I'll say this before going any further: this discussion we're having, and these words we're using (like "sedition") - in 50% of the countries on this planet the authorities would be knocking on our doors before we even finished typing. Y'know, if you're lucky you might have time to make a cup of coffee before they get there. But here I am, no one's come beating down my door, and I've been circling around the S-word all day. That's worth something - in fact it's worth a lot. And I don't want to lose it - in fact I am scared to death of losing it. What I sense now, is we're in danger of losing it - either all of it or some part of it, and that would be a very sad thing, and it would also be a very dangerous thing.

This is a lot of trust "they" are asking for, though. A lot. I'm not used to "trusting" my politicians, especially after the miserable set of performances they've been delivering these last three rounds. It seems to me that what I'm hearing in a lot of these words is an attempt to lay down "boundaries", and it also seems to me that this activity is within the legitimate purview and domain of the citizens of the United States of America.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Actually its not unarguable.  It was an on going debate for several years regarding the role of the Supreme Court.  We now accept the SC as the final word but that wasn't always the case and there is nothing in the Constitution that states  the SC has that status.


They were only suppose to do something if the lower courts could not agree. They are suppose to be the last appeal. They have never been there to take away states rights or go against the people. Mostly if one state is against another and they can't settle it. Today we have given them too much power and the congress has a right to make one step down if they don't go by our laws.

----------


## Victory

> Agreed....but the *only* entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
> That is unarguable legal fact.


Then you think the United States was formed as an oligarchy.  You would be wrong.

Can a Supreme Court justice be removed?

What if he doesn't agree to be removed?

What if a majority of justices disagree?  Can Congress remove them?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Then you think the United States was formed as an oligarchy.  You would be wrong.
> 
> Can a Supreme Court justice be removed?
> 
> What if he doesn't agree to be removed?
> 
> What if a majority of justices disagree?  Can Congress remove them?


Example: FDR's stacking of the Supreme Court around the Social Security issue.

----------

Victory (10-22-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Then you think the United States was formed as an oligarchy.  You would be wrong.
> 
> Can a Supreme Court justice be removed?
> 
> What if he doesn't agree to be removed?
> 
> What if a majority of justices disagree?  Can Congress remove them?


They can be impeached and removed.  

Of course, as the Declaration of Independence points out, we have the right to abolish governments who do not serve our wishes.  That's a majority decision, not a minority one.

----------

Victory (10-22-2014)

----------


## Victory

> A well regulated militia is you and me?  The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a well regulated militia.  A bunch of idiots with boy toys is not  well regulated militia IMO.
> 
> For that matter there  are much more effective ways to counter a despotic government than using small arms.  The partisans of WW II proved that.


Explain how the Founders intended "the militia" to mean "the National Guard" when the NG didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.

----------


## Victory

> Thanks for what appears to be reasonable opinions on the purpose of the second amendment.
> 
> One must realize that in the beginning our central government was very small and poorly funded to support a standing army, so they depended on
> volunteers as needed to do the job.  I wonder, did the British citizens at the time have access to personal firearms?


As if the Founders couldn't look past their own nose into the future.  You should probably give them a bit more credit than that.

And no.  British citizens (read "colonials") had to surrender their firearms to the crown.

Does any liberal here know the damn history of the motivations for the 2nd Amendment?

----------


## Devil505

> Example: FDR's stacking of the Supreme Court around the Social Security issue.


FDR never did pack the court.

----------


## Graham Garner

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.

----------

Devil505 (10-22-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> They can be impeached and removed.





> Can a Supreme Court justice be removed?


*Individual* justices can be impeached/removed but:
1. Only one justice was *ever* impeached by the House but he was acquitted by the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase
2. There is no Constitutional mechanism to remove a whole SC.

----------


## Matt

People empower people. A firearm is just a tool and like any tool its usage is determined by the one using it.

----------


## Matt

> Explain how the Founders intended "the militia" to mean "the National Guard" when the NG didn't even exist when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.


The National Guard isnt militia anyways. Theres no difference between them and the federal level other than funding and command. The NG still counts as fully fledged military. 

If you want a militia please note organizations like the virginia defense force which is made up of volunteers and loosely governed by the state.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> FDR never did pack the court.


He tried but was stopped.

----------


## Devil505

> He tried but was stopped.


The fact remains the SC was never "Packed." http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...t-packing-plan
I still think it should be.

----------


## Victory

> Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.


This entire post is a copy/paste of another post you wrote earlier.  Please stop spamming.

----------


## Victory

> *The National Guard isnt militia anyways*. Theres no difference between them and the federal level other than funding and command.


Oh I know.

One step at a time.

----------


## Victory

> *Individual* justices can be impeached/removed but:
> 1. Only one justice was *ever* impeached by the House but he was acquitted by the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase
> 2. There is no Constitutional mechanism to remove a whole SC.


Yes there is.  If one justice can be removed and replaced what is to stop the entire bench from being removed and replaced?

----------


## Devil505

> Yes there is.  If one justice can be removed and replaced what is to stop the entire bench from being removed and replaced?


LOL....Go for it!
(I think you'd have a better chance at repealing the law of gravity)

Funny but I think this whole problem would disappear for the Right if we just had a Republican in the WH. Amirite?

----------


## Victory

> LOL....Go for it!
> (I think you'd have a better chance at repealing the law of gravity)
> 
> Funny but I think this whole problem would disappear for the Right if we just had a Republican in the WH. Amirite?


Thanks.  Didn't know we were talking about your "opinion."




> 2. There is no Constitutional mechanism to remove a whole SC.


I thought you were talking about your misunderstanding of facts.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.


Nice attempt to rewrite history, but you're way off base. Jefferson copied the early part of the Declaration almost verbatim from John Locke. The framers of our Constitution did not "create a nation", they created a government, and that's something entirely different. The nation existed long before the Constitution did, and the proof is the Constitution wasn't ratified till 13 years after the fact. 

And if the Constitution is a social contract, then I'm going to sue my government for breach of contract.

My government has broken and violated that contract so many times that they're doing it with impunity by now.

And if you know anything about contract law, most courts will void the entire contract if one of the partners isn't performing in good faith.

There is no severability clause in our Constitution.

----------


## nonsqtr

> This entire post is a copy/paste of another post you wrote earlier.  Please stop spamming.


I'm surprised Graham even had the guts to show his face in this thread again.

Read his next-to-the-last sentence there, there's that word again - "subject".

Graham's still trying to pull bullshit authority out of his bullshit butt.

Goddamit, I hate these fucking morons who think there's some kind of "state authority" that exists without my blessing. *There is no such thing.* And the fucking morons who are trying to conjure it up can (in no uncertain terms) go straight to hell and *stay* there, and rot there for all eternity.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> Attachment 6270


Yes.

Thug Martin and Thug Mountain attest to this from their graves.

Reading Assignment:   The Weapons Shop by AE van Vogt.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting.


It's an argument the fascists have to make to disguise the true purpose of the Second Amendment, which, is, of course, to put a coffin lid on fascists.

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.


This is what is known not as bullshit, but TOTAL BULLSHIT!

"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?" - Federalist 29.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-23-2014),Green Man (10-23-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No. We as citizens do not have the right to depose the President of the United States. Under the Constitution, that power is vested in the Congress to bring articles of impeachment from office.


Clinton was deposed.

And he committed perjury as a result.

You can't depose an elected president.  You depose despots and tyrants, you impeach and convicted presidents.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The people dont have the right to even vote for the President of the United States, much less depose him. The United States is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic; which is a representative form of government. Under the Constitution, a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; _Bush v. Gore_, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). The power to remove the President of the United States resides only in Congress. Get used to it.


The United States is not a Republic.  Read the Constitution some day to see why.

----------


## Sled Dog

> BS!
> 
> You guys keep pretending the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment don't exist.
> *"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> *
> A child could read that sentence and understand the people's right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia for the defense of this nation. (luckily for me the SCOTUS disagrees with me)


Yes, that is the interpretation a CHILD would take away, if the child was particularly stupid and being raised by liberals.

MY children know better.

----------


## Sled Dog

> But legally (and that's really all that matters) every law is ...ipso facto....Constitutional unless it's overruled by at least 5 of the 9 justices on the SC.
> It is only their current *opinion* that sets the limits on federal law, not a decaying document that means nothing sans their interpretation.
> Of course We the People can revolt against any decision they make but that revolt better be a majority of the people or it is doomed to fail.
> (Right now we just have a vocal *minority* crying about rebellion because they lost a few elections.....but this to shall pass)


Naturally the Rodents love that false interpretation.

If anything can be constitutional, NOTHING can be constitutional because the Constitution has no meaning.

And the Constitution stopped decaying decades ago.  Decay doesn't happen in a 100% helium atmosphere.  The current rot in the Constitutional governance of the US is directly traceable to those people who insincerely believe that ANYTHING is Constitutional if some guys in dresses say it it.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The first half of your post shows why rebellion will not be necessary.
> Societies change naturally over time and we've always been able to do that within the framework of law and our Constitution


That's bullshit. 

Almost ALL of the changes in the federal government since Woody the Formerly Worst was president have happened in violation of the Constituiton, and, ergo, have not occured "within" the Constitution.

Which means they're unconstitutional.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Mr. nonsqtr:
> After suffering your insults and incivility, the only positive thing I can say to you is that your moniker "nonsqtr" - an abbreviation of non sequitur (Lat. an illogical statement or conclusion) - aptly describes you posts.
> Good day to you, sir.
> Graham Garner


 @nonsqtr: Non-Squatter, ie, can stand to take a piss, ie, isn't a girl.

nonsqtr: Nonsense Quarter, where he goest to find Obama voters.

nonsqtr: Never On November Shall Queens Take the Remote.

nonsqtr: Non's Quart Reserve, a special drink I've never heard of.

nonsqtr: No One Not Stinky Quits The Rebellion.

Lefties have NO imagination, I swear.

And I'm swearing at this damn computer becuase I bend down to pet the husky and I had 8 other possible meanings listed, and the friggin' page crashed!

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014),nonsqtr (10-23-2014)

----------


## goosey

> That's bullshit. 
> 
> Almost ALL of the changes in the federal government since Woody the Formerly Worst was president have happened in violation of the Constituiton, and, ergo, have not occured "within" the Constitution.
> 
> Which means they're unconstitutional.


Are you referring to Woodrow Wilson?

----------


## Hansel

> The United States is not a Republic.  Read the Constitution some day to see why.


Save us some time and tell us why the US is not a republic.  If not, then what is it?

I am no expert on forms of government and frankly don't give a rat's ass about the technicalities as long as it serves the needs of the people in an equitable manner.

Google found this definition for republic, which is basically what I think a republic is.  I am not one to split hairs and usually think of our government as a representative democracy or a republic
of the nature defined by the following: 

re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
_noun_
noun: *republic*; plural noun: *republics*

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.


_archaic_
a group with a certain equality between its members.


Why is it that some people get off by showing off their knowledge of our constipation and system of government?  It doesn't matter what a document says, without honest and cooperative public servants it won't even make good ass wipe.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Are you referring to Woodrow Wilson?


Aye.

----------


## nonsqtr

> @nonsqtr: Non-Squatter, ie, can stand to take a piss, ie, isn't a girl.
> 
> nonsqtr: Nonsense Quarter, where he goest to find Obama voters.
> 
> nonsqtr: Never On November Shall Queens Take the Remote.
> 
> nonsqtr: Non's Quart Reserve, a special drink I've never heard of.
> 
> nonsqtr: No One Not Stinky Quits The Rebellion.
> ...


Ha ha - well, thank you for your efforts.  :Smile: 

(She's a beautiful animal, too).

In the latin _non sequitur_ literally means "does not follow" (in this case, "as in, the likes of Mr. Garner").  :Tongue20: 

If we kinda laugh at the little power grab where the attorneys try to claim the meaning all for themselves (as in, "pull a meaning out of their butts and try to make it stick with a false claim of authority"), then we can find the original literal usage in plenty of the writings and poetry of the day, and etc etc.

The snake has political symbolism too. In fact, there's supposed to be a little motto that goes along with it, thanks for reminding me.

I've been doing a little research into this topic, since we first met Graham. I think I've found something that'll really blow his legal mind. It's a dangerous topic though, they're calling those people "extremists" these days - but if he comes back maybe we can talk about it. It has to do with a word - it's one of those words with multiple meanings, like "general welfare".  :Smile:

----------


## Sled Dog

> Save us some time and tell us why the US is not a republic. If not, then what is it?


It's fucked up is what it is.

It certainly isn't a republic, since a republic is a government organized to balance the needs of the people, of the aristocracy, and of the king.  In the case of the United States, it used to have one House elected to represnt the people, (perhaps you can name that body?) and another house representing the state governments, balanced against the executive branch.

What body of Congress now represents the interests of the state governments in the United States?





> I am no expert on forms of government and frankly don't give a rat's ass about the technicalities as long as it serves the needs of the people in an equitable manner.


We can tell.

The government you support, this one, does not serve the purpose you pretend to desire. 

You seem to be happy with the Rodent dominated fascistic tyranny you voted for with Obama.




> Google found this definition for republic, which is basically what I think a republic is. I am not one to split hairs and usually think of our government as a representative democracy or a republic
> of the nature defined by the following: 
> 
> re·pub·lic
> rəˈpəblik/
> _noun_
> noun: *republic*; plural noun: *republics*
> 
> a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
> ...


And there's the reason why you shouldn't use fascist-based Google.


> Why is it that some people get off by showing off their knowledge of our constipation and system of government? It doesn't matter what a document says, without honest and cooperative public servants it won't even make good ass wipe.





> 


We have no knowledge of your constitipation and it's going to remain that way.

----------


## Victory

> I am no expert on forms of government and frankly don't give a rat's ass about the technicalities as long as it serves the needs of the people in an equitable manner.


See, that's the problem.  You DO need to give a rat's ass.  Furthermore, the government does NOT exist to serve your needs.

You need to give a rat's ass so you are motivated to discover WHY the government exists.  The technicalities are where the rubber meets the road in terms of defending our rights or repressing them.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I am no expert on forms of government and frankly don't give a rat's ass about the technicalities as long as it serves the needs of the people in an equitable manner.


Heh heh, that's a classic.

(I almost missed that).  :Smile:

----------


## hoytmonger

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> Attachment 6270


Yes. Firearms allow those less physically able to defend themselves from predators... be them man or beast... rather than having to rely on the state for protection... which is idiocy.

----------


## Green Man

> Agreed....but the *only* entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
> That is unarguable legal fact.


It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.

----------

hoytmonger (10-23-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


You're incorrect... as usual. The right to defend oneself is a natural right... the state doesn't grant rights. Because the laws of men prevent the natural right to defend oneself doesn't make it righteous. It just exemplifies the deleterious nature of the state.

The laws of men... and the state that supports them... are detrimental to human society. That is basic logic.

----------

Green Man (10-23-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> What kind of pussy swears off weaponry because of a fucking _BB gun_ accident, that didn't even draw blood???


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Devil505

> It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.


http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-pla...became-supreme
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...udicial-review

----------


## Green Man

> http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-pla...became-supreme
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...udicial-review


Please quote the text of constitution that says the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.

It doesn't say that in the constitution.

----------

nonsqtr (10-23-2014)

----------


## Wehrwolfen

> Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt. 
> Do firearms really empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.
> Attachment 6270


Clearly Missouri state senator, Democrat Jamilah Nasheed agrees in practicing her Second Amendment Rights. Ms. Nasheed showed up to join with her fellow citizens in protesting the recent violence. "But despite her long record of working to enact legislation restricting the rights of gun owners, she apparently decided to bring a long a little protection of her own".

----------


## Devil505

> Please quote the text of constitution that says the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC.
> It doesn't say that in the constitution.


It doesn't have to in law.
It says it in Marbury v Madison.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Here's why SC Judicial Review is legal and essential:
http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-pla...became-supreme
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...udicial-review

----------


## Green Man

> It doesn't have to in law.
> It says it in Marbury v Madison.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


Thank you for confirming that the constitution doesn't say that the the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the supreme court.

----------

hoytmonger (10-23-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Thank you for confirming that the constitution doesn't say that the the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the supreme court.


You're quite welcome.

*It's not quite as simple as you evidently think though and Judicial Review is settled law in this country.*

_A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]_
_At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]_
_Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]_
_The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:_
_[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.__[17]_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

----------


## hoytmonger

> It doesn't have to in law.
> It says it in Marbury v Madison.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
> 
> Here's why SC Judicial Review is legal and essential:
> http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-pla...became-supreme
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...udicial-review


The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land... some bullshit decision by a Federalist judge doesn't trump the Constitution.

----------

Green Man (10-23-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> You're quite welcome.
> 
> *It's not quite as simple as you evidently think though and Judicial Review is settled law in this country.*
> 
> _A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]_
> _At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]_
> _Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]_
> _The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:_
> _[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.__[17]_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


You made the claim: "the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the SC. That is unarguable legal fact."

As I said in post #177, it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.

You have, as of yet, to disprove my assertion.

----------

Sled Dog (10-23-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> You're quite welcome.
> 
> *It's not quite as simple as you evidently think though and Judicial Review is settled law in this country.*
> 
> _A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]_
> _At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]_
> _Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]_
> _The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:__[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.__[17]_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


The powers of SCOTUS are defined in Article III.

Judicial review is not among them.

----------

Green Man (10-23-2014)

----------


## Devil505

Tell you what:
Why don't you both argue *your* interpretations of the Constitution as it relates to Judicial Review with the SCOTUS and report back if you've managed to change anything.

Edit: You guys (and Robo) are arguing your philosophy and I'm simply telling you what the law is.

----------


## Green Man

> Tell you what:
> Why don't you both argue your interpretations of the Constitution as it relates to Judicial Review with the SCOTUS and report back if you've managed to change anything.


Thank you for confirming that the constitution doesn't say that the the only entity that can legally decide if a law adheres to the Constitution is the supreme court.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Tell you what:
> Why don't you both argue your interpretations of the Constitution as it relates to Judicial Review with the SCOTUS and report back if you've managed to change anything.


The intent of the Constitution was not to let the fox guard the henhouse... SCOTUS is as corrupt as the rest of the branches of federal government. 

Simply because you subscribe to the corruption of the federal government, doesn't make it legal... or moral... or ethical.

----------

Green Man (10-23-2014),Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Tell you what:
> Why don't you both argue *your* interpretations of the Constitution as it relates to Judicial Review with the SCOTUS and report back if you've managed to change anything.
> 
> Edit: You guys (and Robo) are arguing your philosophy and I'm simply telling you what the law is.


But that's exactly the problem, Devil. You're doing the same thing Graham is/was, which is telling us what the law is.

And maybe you haven't been hearing us clearly, 'cause we've been telling you quite loudly: *the law is corrupt.*

See now, in supporting a corrupt law that's not actually supported by the People, aren't you doing the same thing Graham was, which is appealing to an authority that doesn't exist?

You go ask anyone whether they support Kelo, or Citizens, or Free Speech Zones or any of the others, I don't think you'll get a majority on any of them. Wiretapping laws, national security, same thing - they're unpopular laws. 

So like, if you get an unpopular law like an alcohol stamp or something, people will obey it "grudgingly" until such time as it becomes an imposition. But you saw what happened during Prohibition, and that was an actual Constitutional amendment.

Part of the reason the Republican Party is in the toilet right now is that they're not resonating with the People on the ground. They've got "some" support but they've lost focus and principle and political soul and they're "floundering" philosophically. The philosophy has to be in alignment with the actual law, that's important, because without that level of social support no one has any reason to obey the law. (Other than fear, and fear is the worst reason in the world to obey a law).

----------


## nonsqtr

> The intent of the Constitution was not to let the fox guard the henhouse... SCOTUS is as corrupt as the rest of the branches of federal government. 
> 
> Simply because you subscribe to the corruption of the federal government, doesn't make it legal... or moral... or ethical.


No. But checks and balances are the best you're going to get, for this "necessary evil". If you've got checks and balances that actually work, then your system will tend to remain in equilibrium rather than being subjected to the vagaries of momentary palace intrigue and the whims of the powers-du-jour.

These things (like Supreme Court decisions) don't occur in a vacuum, they're part of the powers-du-jour. In other words, at any given moment Clarence Thomas might be influenced by something his wife (who's a lobbyist) might have said while they were kissing each other goodnight. Is it "ethical, legal, and moral"? No. But does it happen? Hell yes. And it happens a lot, and it happens all over the place, and there's actually very little we can do to stop it from happening. So, it's a checks and balances situation. You figure Clarence has 8 counterparts, plus then that whole structure is balanced by the Congress, and so on and so forth.

There's a problem is Clarence happens to be strongly aligned with a political party, and there's also a problem is Clarence happens to be an ideologue, and there's also a problem if Clarence becomes part of some secret cabal, maybe a group trying to pull off a coup or whatever - all these things are risks that are very difficult to mitigate, and they're probably best viewed and addressed through the lens of checks and balances. IMO.  :Smile:

----------


## hoytmonger

> No. But checks and balances are the best you're going to get, for this "necessary evil". If you've got checks and balances that actually work, then your system will tend to remain in equilibrium rather than being subjected to the vagaries of momentary palace intrigue and the whims of the powers-du-jour.
> 
> These things (like Supreme Court decisions) don't occur in a vacuum, they're part of the powers-du-jour. In other words, at any given moment Clarence Thomas might be influenced by something his wife (who's a lobbyist) might have said while they were kissing each other goodnight. Is it "ethical, legal, and moral"? No. But does it happen? Hell yes. And it happens a lot, and it happens all over the place, and there's actually very little we can do to stop it from happening. So, it's a checks and balances situation. You figure Clarence has 8 counterparts, plus then that whole structure is balanced by the Congress, and so on and so forth.
> 
> There's a problem is Clarence happens to be strongly aligned with a political party, and there's also a problem is Clarence happens to be an ideologue, and there's also a problem if Clarence becomes part of some secret cabal, maybe a group trying to pull off a coup or whatever - all these things are risks that are very difficult to mitigate, and they're probably best viewed and addressed through the lens of checks and balances. IMO.


There are no 'checks and balances' anymore. Lincoln eliminated state's rights through military force, before that SCOTUS decisions meant nothing more than the decisions of Congress or of the state legislatures. Nullification and secession were the defenses of the states against a authoritarian federal government. Now the states are beggars with their hands held out to the federal government because of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and liberty is dead.

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014),nonsqtr (10-23-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> But that's exactly the problem, Devil. You're doing the same thing Graham is/was, which is telling us what the law is.
> 
> And maybe you haven't been hearing us clearly, 'cause we've been telling you quite loudly: *the law is corrupt.*


You're quite right.....I'm telling you what the law *IS* and I gave you a few links explaining why Judicial Review is the law.......and you're telling me you don't like it.
ok but the fact that you don't like it doesn't change it from being the law and being enforceable.

Your recourse is either to  accept the law, work to change it or grab a gun and start shooting.
LOL...what can I tell you?

----------


## nonsqtr

> There are no 'checks and balances' anymore. Lincoln eliminated state's rights through military force, before that SCOTUS decisions meant nothing more than the decisions of Congress or of the state legislatures. Nullification and secession were the defenses of the states against a authoritarian federal government. Now the states are beggars with their hands held out to the federal government because of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and liberty is dead.


Wow, that's harsh but most of it is accurate.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're quite right.....I'm telling you what the law *IS* and I gave you a few links explaining why Judicial Review is the law.......and you're telling me you don't like it.
> ok but the fact that you don't like it doesn't change it from be the law and being enforceable.
> 
> Your recourse is either to  accept the law, work to change it or grab a gun and start shooting.
> LOL...what can I tell you?


Come on Devil, we've had this discussion before, right? The Constitution provides a legal recourse for the People to change it. If we have a moron Supreme Court justice who just can't seem to get it right, then we write a law to constrain his decisions. In other words, even a Supreme Court Justice can not "change" the Constitution, they can only "interpret" it. They might to slip in some weasel moves like money is speech and stuff, but at the end of the day they can only do that "so" much before they become the object of severe ridicule.

So, we could write a Constitutional amendment that says "speech is not money", and IF we could get our Congress to pass it and our President to sign it, the Supreme Morons would have no choice whatsoever but to obey that law. They couldn't "strike it down" because it's actually part of the Constitution now, it's the supreme law of the land and even the shit-for-brains Morons have to obey it. 

The Founders in their infinite wisdom provided a legal avenue for the *People* to over-rule the Supreme Court.

It's part of our checks and balances (even though we haven't yet used it that way).

----------

Victory (10-24-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Come on Devil, we've had this discussion before, right? The Constitution provides a legal recourse for the People to change it. If we have a moron Supreme Court justice who just can't seem to get it right, then we write a law to constrain his decisions. In other words, even a Supreme Court Justice can not "change" the Constitution, they can only "interpret" it. They might to slip in some weasel moves like money is speech and stuff, but at the end of the day they can only do that "so" much before they become the object of severe ridicule.
> 
> So, we could write a Constitutional amendment that says "speech is not money", and IF we could get our Congress to pass it and our President to sign it, the Supreme Morons would have no choice whatsoever but to obey that law. They couldn't "strike it down" because it's actually part of the Constitution now, it's the supreme law of the land and even the shit-for-brains Morons have to obey it. 
> 
> The Founders in their infinite wisdom provided a legal avenue for the *People* to over-rule the Supreme Court.
> 
> It's part of our checks and balances (even though we haven't yet used it that way).


 So do it.

Me......I'm going to wait until 2016 when Hillary or another Dem is elected President and gets to appoint a few new justices to turn this court around.
Unril then we can only hope that John Roberts has enough sense to not let the Right destroy his court and this country.

----------


## Victory

> I am no expert on forms of government and frankly don't give a rat's ass about the technicalities as long as it serves the needs of the people in an equitable manner.





> Heh heh, that's a classic.
> 
> (I almost missed that).


[pounding on table]  Service!  Service!  What's a guy hafta do to get some service at this government counter!  You!  Waiter, come here.  Gimme a universal health care special, a side of TARP, hold the liberty, a bunch of QEs, a porous border, and a diet Ebola smothered in an equitable manner.  And I don't want it to cost less than $17 trillion.

----------

Invayne (10-23-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You're incorrect... as usual. The right to defend oneself is a natural right... the state doesn't grant rights. Because the laws of men prevent the natural right to defend oneself doesn't make it righteous. It just exemplifies the deleterious nature of the state.
> 
> The laws of men... and the state that supports them... are detrimental to human society. That is basic logic.


Human society -   That set of rules and customs that define the proper interactions between people in the society.

Laws of men - that set of rules and customs that define the proper interactions between people in the society.

THAT is the basics of logic.

----------


## Sled Dog

> http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-pla...became-supreme
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...udicial-review




That's really weird, you didn't post a link to Constitution or cite the clause of the Constitution that would prove that the Constitution contains what you were told it does not contain.

Which means you can't find the clause in the Constitution.

Because, of course, it isn't in the Constitution, as you were informed.

Which means you were wrong.  Again, as usual.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Tell you what:
> Why don't you both argue *your* interpretations of the Constitution as it relates to Judicial Review with the SCOTUS and report back if you've managed to change anything.
> 
> Edit: You guys (and Robo) are arguing your philosophy and I'm simply telling you what the law is.


Translation:

He's wrong.

He knows he's wrong.

He knows you know he's wrong.

He knows you know he knows you know that he's wrong.

He's going to continue to lie, because his real job at the DEA was being the departmental rug.

----------


## nonsqtr

Well look - let's play this out a little bit. Devil is appealing to law as the supreme authority, and it seem I'm appealing to human beings as the supreme authority. Now, everyone in this equation seems to be interested in "upholding the Constitution", and each of them is going to uphold the Constitution however they perceive the Constitution. In other words, some of us perceive the Constitution as a living breathing document - well then, that's the way it's going to be upheld. And others of us are more literal and we're interested in the text of what's actually written down, and that's the way we intend to uphold our Constitution. 

The difference between the perspectives is this: it is the latter case in which the People are actually making the law. The reality in the former case is that 535 elected weasels get bought off by the special interests, and they start passing laws that benefit the special interests - and of course the president loves that because special interests give him power, so he goes along with it. And of course with a chickenshit Supreme Court there's no one to call these people on their bullshit, and the end result is not only that the People become de-facto disenfranchised, but also the law itself becomes corrupt - it becomes an instrument of plunder rather than an instrument of justice.

----------


## Sled Dog

Let's look at it the correct way, instead.

The Constitution is not a "living breathing document", its immutable RECORD of THE LAW.

That is why Hammurabi took the effort to write down his laws, after all, so that they couldn't be easily changed or lied about.

People who claim the Constitution is an LBD are lying because they can't sway popular opinion to get THE LAW changed and they despise the principles of freedom equality and fairness the Constitution codifies.

Those people deserve neither respect nor a fair shake, they are liars and backstabbers, traitors, cheats, rapists and perverts.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Let's look at it the correct way, instead.
> 
> The Constitution is not a "living breathing document", its immutable RECORD of THE LAW.
> 
> That is why Hammurabi took the effort to write down his laws, after all, so that they couldn't be easily changed or lied about.
> 
> People who claim the Constitution is an LBD are lying because they can't sway popular opinion to get THE LAW changed and they despise the principles of freedom equality and fairness the Constitution codifies.
> 
> Those people deserve neither respect nor a fair shake, they are liars and backstabbers, traitors, cheats, rapists and perverts.


Basically agreed. The word you're looking for is *codified*, yes? As in the "code" of Hammurabi, the thing that was written down. "Codified".

And why is that important?

In my view, it's so everyone can agree on what the law is. That is vital, if you don't have that the law becomes all but worthless. (And it becomes low hanging fruit for manipulation and all manner of hare brained schemes).

You can't have the written words saying one thing and the practice doing the exact opposite, that kind of inconsistency makes the law lose credibility, and that is the one thing it must have to survive: credibility.

People need to be confident in the law the same way they're confident in money and the economic system (erm... bad example... but you catch my drift).  :Wink:

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-24-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Basically agreed. The word you're looking for is *codified*, yes? As in the "code" of Hammurabi, the thing that was written down. "Codified".
> 
> And why is that important?
> 
> In my view, it's so everyone can agree on what the law is. That is vital, if you don't have that the law becomes all but worthless. (And it becomes low hanging fruit for manipulation and all manner of hare brained schemes).
> 
> You can't have the written words saying one thing and the practice doing the exact opposite, that kind of inconsistency makes the law lose credibility, and that is the one thing it must have to survive: credibility.
> 
> People need to be confident in the law the same way they're confident in money and the economic system (erm... bad example... but you catch my drift).


No, the word I was looking for was RECORD.  "Codified" merely means that something is following a prescribed course of action, it does not require that the prescription be recorded.  Chivalry was a code of conduct.  It wasn't written down and it's application was left to the individual for the most part.

But as you say, it is important that the law be accessible to all so that all may know what the law is.   The Constitution is there for anyone who can to read it.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Human society -   That set of rules and customs that define the proper interactions between people in the society.
> 
> Laws of men - that set of rules and customs that define the proper interactions between people in the society.
> 
> THAT is the basics of logic.


Once again, you've proven yourself to be ignorant.

Human society is based in economics, trade and the division of labor, and the laws of men only serve to eliminate the natural rights humans possess.

----------


## Hansel

Do all of you drink at the same bar?  :Wtf20:

----------

Graham Garner (10-24-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

I have it firsthand from a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor at the time that he would brook no argument on the subject. As for myself, I think I would prefer to trust my rights to the law courts than wait for God to act on the issue.

----------


## Hansel

The trend seems to be towards more gun control so why don't the red necks get with the program and help to shape laws that we can live with? I support the idea of people owning simple firearms to defend themselves with but I don't see the need for assault weapons or those with high capacity magazines.  Most of us can do fine with
a basic revolver or a semi automatic handgun and with maybe a shotgun with a five round magazine or less.

The virtues of having weapons for personal defense are not outweighing the virtues for keeping the more deadly ones out of the hands of idiots.  Yep, I may sound like a leftist but I am just trying to be practical about the issue.

----------

Graham Garner (10-24-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Well look - let's play this out a little bit. Devil is appealing to law as the supreme authority, and it seem I'm appealing to human beings as the supreme authority. Now, everyone in this equation seems to be interested in "upholding the Constitution", and each of them is going to uphold the Constitution however they perceive the Constitution. In other words, some of us perceive the Constitution as a living breathing document - well then, that's the way it's going to be upheld. And others of us are more literal and we're interested in the text of what's actually written down, and that's the way we intend to uphold our Constitution. 
> 
> The difference between the perspectives is this: it is the latter case in which the People are actually making the law. The reality in the former case is that 535 elected weasels get bought off by the special interests, and they start passing laws that benefit the special interests - and of course the president loves that because special interests give him power, so he goes along with it. And of course with a chickenshit Supreme Court there's no one to call these people on their bullshit, and the end result is not only that the People become de-facto disenfranchised, but also the law itself becomes corrupt - it becomes an instrument of plunder rather than an instrument of justice.


1. Since 10 people will undoubtedly have 10 different opinions on the meaning almost any part of the Constitution, we need referrees with the power to make one opinion the law of the land...otherwise we'd have chaos.
2. Those "Referees" (we call them SC Justices) can only be drawn from the pool of humans on this planet.
3. All humans are fallible and will sometime decide incorrectly.
*Therefore.*..The SC...while imperfect.....is a necessary foundation of our government and there would be chaos whithout it.

If anyone has a *workable/realistic* idea to replace it that could be ratified *by the state legislatures (both Houses) of 2/3rds of the states*....I'll be happy to listen.

----------


## Victory

> 1. Since 10 people will undoubtedly have 10 different opinions on the meaning almost any part of the Constitution, we need referrees with the power to make one opinion the law of the land...otherwise we'd have chaos.
> 2. Those "Referees" (we call them SC Justices) can only be drawn from the pool of humans on this planet.
> 3. All humans are fallible and will sometime decide incorrectly.
> *Therefore.*..The SC...while imperfect.....is a necessary foundation of our government and there would be chaos whithout it.
> 
> If anyone has a *workable/realistic* idea to replace it that could be ratified *by the state legislatures (both Houses) of 2/3rds of the states*....I'll be happy to listen.


Why do you keep blabbering on about irrelevant bullshit as if somebody were arguing against the constitutionality of having a Supreme Court.  I've never in my years of forum posting ever seen anybody argue in favor of the abolition of the Supreme Court.

You are forever arguing a point nobody is interested in.  You might as well be talking to the wind and shaking your fist at the sky.

----------


## Devil505

> Why do you keep blabbering on about irrelevant bullshit as if somebody were arguing against the constitutionality of having a Supreme Court.


BS.

A number of members are arguing that the SC should not have Judicial Review.....the final say on constitutionality of laws...without which the SC would be useless.
Get it now?


Why do yo keep blabbering idiotic questions?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The trend seems to be towards more gun control so why don't the red necks get with the program and help to shape laws that we can live with? I support the idea of people owning simple firearms to defend themselves with but I don't see the need for assault weapons or those with high capacity magazines.  Most of us can do fine with
> a basic revolver or a semi automatic handgun and with maybe a shotgun with a five round magazine or less.
> 
> The virtues of having weapons for personal defense are not outweighing the virtues for keeping the more deadly ones out of the hands of idiots.  Yep, I may sound like a leftist but I am just trying to be practical about the issue.


Because the Constitution trumps "the trend."

If you don't like the Constitution...jettison it.  Legally and openly; not with duplicity, stealth, and illegal actions by your cult-figure Preezies.  Just discard it, and replace it with Marx.

Duly ratified.

If you can.  And the blood be on your souls; and there is always blood and persecution and death and eventual collapse when the former citizen is made chattel of his government, his rights are lost and his right to protect his rights lost.  Loss of property and wealth follow and finally his right to his own time and activities.

You will deny it.  For the same reason Marxist agitators constantly deny it.  Either out of dishonesty or of a complete ignorance of history.

----------

nonsqtr (10-24-2014)

----------


## Victory

> The trend seems to be towards more gun control so why don't the red necks get with the program and help to shape laws that we can live with?


Do you even realize what a sheep you sound like?

Translation:  All the lemmings are jumping off the cliff.  So why don't all you rednecks get with the program and figure out how we can jump off the cliff in a way we can live with?

Answer:  Because we're not lemmings, dammit!  Don't you people have eyes that see?  Don't you have the ability to THINK?  To REASON?  What the hell does the word "principles" mean to you?  Do you know or do you just do what the trend tells you to do?  Do you have any idea how your desire to follow the trend is manipulated by people with money and power to get you to vote for their policies and candidates?  YOU are "Exhibit A" with respect to "Subjects of Propaganda and the Results of Manipulation."  Do you have any idea what I'm talking about or do you just read what's trendy?

Yes, the Constitution trumps the trend.  Well said JPT.

----------


## Devil505

> Do you even realize what a sheep you sound like?


Do you realize that most of your posts start with personal insults to other members?
Do you realize that that is a sure sign of a weak debater who tries to cover his lack of intelligence and debate ability by being offensive?

----------


## Hansel

> Because the Constitution trumps "the trend."
> 
> If you don't like the Constitution...jettison it.  Legally and openly; not with duplicity, stealth, and illegal actions by your cult-figure Preezies.  Just discard it, and replace it with Marx.
> 
> Duly ratified.
> 
> If you can.  And the blood be on your souls; and there is always blood and persecution and death and eventual collapse when the former citizen is made chattel of his government, his rights are lost and his right to protect his rights lost.  Loss of property and wealth follow and finally his right to his own time and activities.
> 
> You will deny it.  For the same reason Marxist agitators constantly deny it.  Either out of dishonesty or of a complete ignorance of history.


Spoken by a bigot, aka urban redneck.

If people want to change the constipation then they will.  In case you haven't noticed there are a number of explosive devices that are forbidden to the 
average Joe Blow so I don't think a constipational enema will be needed to further tighten the ban.   

Apparently you have a cognition problem. Show me where I have advocated a complete ban of firearms for citizens. If you would pull your head out of your ass then you might learn something and would have less need of fear mongering attacks on me. Frankly I don't give a shit what you think of me because the trend exists and is moving. So you can take your ass wipe and sit on it for all I care.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Spoken by a bigot, aka urban redneck.
> 
> If people want to change the constipation then they will. ....


Name-calling?  Ridiculing the Constitution?   Your stock is falling faster than Solyndra's in 2011.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The trend seems to be towards more gun control so why don't the red necks get with the program and help to shape laws that we can live with? I support the idea of people owning simple firearms to defend themselves with but I don't see the need for assault weapons or those with high capacity magazines.  Most of us can do fine with
> a basic revolver or a semi automatic handgun and with maybe a shotgun with a five round magazine or less.
> 
> The virtues of having weapons for personal defense are not outweighing the virtues for keeping the more deadly ones out of the hands of idiots.  Yep, I may sound like a leftist but I am just trying to be practical about the issue.



So, we should just "get with the program" and to hell with the Constitution and our rights.  What next?   The Government can use our back bedrooms to quarter troops?  We need to submit our letters to the editor to a government censor before they can be published?  How much of our rights are you willing to give up in order to "get with the program"?

----------


## Victory

> I have it firsthand from a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor at the time that he would brook no argument on the subject. As for myself, I think I would prefer to trust my rights to the law courts than wait for God to act on the issue.


Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is "guns" or "firearms" mentioned.  The word is "arms."

_A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

_So with that in mind, there are plenty of passages in the Bible that support the 2nd Amendment.  (As a lawyer you should already know these.)

Proverbs 25:26					 						ESV      					Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.	
(You need arms to resist the wicked.)

1 Samuel 13:19-20					 						ESV          					Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears. But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle,	
(A very strong message that INDIVIDUALS should own arms!)

Judges 5:8					 						ESV          					When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?	
(An even better one advocating personal ownership of arms!)

Mark 3:27					 						ESV          					But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.	
(Plenty more where that came from.  Need I continue?)

Look folks--look Graham--the literary work referenced more times than any other during the Constitutional Convention when the Founders were hammering out the details of the Constitution was. . .(drum roll, please). . .The Bible.  I know it pains some people to discover the Bible has been written into the Constitution but there it is.  Other references include works from John Locke, Shakespeare, Machiavelli, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and many others.  But none referenced more times than The Bible.  Get used to it folks.  You live in a Christian nation.  It's designed for freedom, glory, faith, hope, and love.

What you do with that design is up to you.

----------

Sled Dog (10-24-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is "guns" or "firearms" mentioned.  The word is "arms."_A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> _So with that in mind, there are plenty of passages in the Bible that support the 2nd Amendment.  (As a lawyer you should already know these.)
> 
> Proverbs 25:26                                             ESV                          Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.    
> (You need arms to resist the wicked.)
> 
> 1 Samuel 13:19-20                                             ESV                              Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears. But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle,    
> (A very strong message that INDIVIDUALS should own arms!)
> ...


While I may not agree with all you say here I do appreciate the tone and substance of this post.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Victory

> Do you realize that most of your posts start with personal insults to other members?
> Do you realize that that is a sure sign of a weak debater who tries to cover his lack of intelligence and debate ability by being offensive?


I'm not calling him a sheep.  I'm saying he sounds like a sheep.

Hate the sin but love the sinner.

----------


## Victory

> So, we should just "get with the program" and to hell with the Constitution and our rights.  What next?   The Government can use our back bedrooms to quarter troops?  We need to submit our letters to the editor to a government censor before they can be published?  How much of our rights are you willing to give up in order to "get with the program"?


Answer:  Whatever the trend allows.

All bow down to the mighty trend!

(Didn't Germany do that at one time?  These trends are tricky things.)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

What did the Founding Fathers mean by "militia"?  You may attack the link but you cannot attack the words of the speakers.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

----------

Invayne (10-24-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Spoken by a bigot, aka urban redneck.
> 
> If people want to change the constipation then they will.  In case you haven't noticed there are a number of explosive devices that are forbidden to the 
> average Joe Blow so I don't think a constipational enema will be needed to further tighten the ban.   
> 
> Apparently you have a cognition problem. Show me where I have advocated a complete ban of firearms for citizens. If you would pull your head out of your ass then you might learn something and would have less need of fear mongering attacks on me. Frankly I don't give a shit what you think of me because the trend exists and is moving. So you can take your ass wipe and sit on it for all I care.


Your love of the Constitution is aparent.  Thank you for your candor.  I'll regard you in the same light as I regard Tertulian or Graham.

----------


## Victory

> what did the founding fathers mean by "militia"?  You may attack the link but you cannot attack the words of the speakers.
> 
> http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm





> “what, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”


Nice!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Because the Constitution trumps "the trend."
> 
> If you don't like the Constitution...jettison it.  Legally and openly; not with duplicity, stealth, and illegal actions by your cult-figure Preezies.  Just discard it, and replace it with Marx.
> 
> Duly ratified.
> 
> If you can.  And the blood be on your souls; and there is always blood and persecution and death and eventual collapse when the former citizen is made chattel of his government, his rights are lost and his right to protect his rights lost.  Loss of property and wealth follow and finally his right to his own time and activities.
> 
> You will deny it.  For the same reason Marxist agitators constantly deny it.  Either out of dishonesty or of a complete ignorance of history.


This is exactly the concern. The "behind the back" thing.

I agree fully - changes in the law need to made openly and honestly.

Whereas, both parties (but especially the Democrats) have a long history of doing things dishonestly and using procedural "tricks" to ramrod important legislation that really should be debated more thoroughly.

The bottom line is, our politicians are impatient, and they're also afraid of what might happen if the other party gains control. And We, the People, have been letting them get away with these lame-ass excuses.

The Supreme Court would be just fine as an interpretive body, if what they were interpreting was actually the Constitution. But instead we get this idiot Roberts who can't decide in his own mind whether mandatory insurance is a tax or a penalty, so he conjures up a solution from the inner recesses of his butt - he says, "it's both"!

Well no, it isn't. It isn't both. Any ten year old idiot can see that it isn't both. It's highly illogical and also entirely un-Constitutional that it should be "both".

But this is the kinda crap we're getting out of our Supreme Morons these days, and as long as that goes on, they're entirely worthless as an interpretive body and no one's going to pay any attention to the idiocy that comes out of their mouths.

Have you been keeping track of the number of people that are simply saying "fuck you" to ObamaCare, and not filling in any of the paperwork, missing all the "mandatory" deadlines, and simply not participating in what is supposedly "the law" - well that's because half the country considers this to be an entirely stupid law, and most of the country can see right through Chief Justice Roberts' supreme stupidity even if they agree with ObamaCare.

That's what happens when the law loses credibility. People simply stop participating. It certainly happened that way during Prohibition, people simply said "fuck you" to the law - *and look what happened*.

That's what I'm trying to tell you Devil, this shit is dangerous. It's dangerous not only to our social and political fabric, but it eventually gives rise to the Al Capones of the world, and those people hang around for a long time after they're no longer useful.

----------


## Victory

> BS.
> 
> A number of members are arguing that the SC should not have Judicial Review.....the final say on constitutionality of laws...without which the SC would be useless.
> Get it now?
> 
> 
> Why do yo keep blabbering idiotic questions?


What number would that be?

----------


## Victory

> So do it.
> 
> Me......I'm going to wait until 2016 when Hillary or another Dem is elected President and gets to appoint a few new justices to turn this court around.
> Unril then we can only hope that John Roberts has enough sense to not let the Right destroy his court and this country.


In the meantime, how 'bout the SC justices engage in a little proper interpretation of the Constitution?  Might save their jobs, y'know.  Might save the country a lot of hassle with ratifying an amendment that anybody with half a brain wouldn't need.

----------


## Devil505

> In the meantime, how 'bout the SC justices engage in a little proper interpretation of the Constitution?


I assume your definition of "proper interpretation" is one you agree with?

----------


## Victory

> I assume your definition of "proper interpretation" is one you agree with?


I assume you are engaging in moral relativism?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Spoken by a bigot, aka urban redneck.
> 
> If people want to change the constipation then they will.  In case you haven't noticed there are a number of explosive devices that are forbidden to the 
> average Joe Blow so I don't think a constipational enema will be needed to further tighten the ban.


So you call me a name and the Constitution another mocking name.

Neither I nor the Constitution are changed; but YOU are outed.

As a fool.




> Apparently you have a cognition problem.


One of us does.  But it's not me.




> Show me where I have advocated a complete ban of firearms for citizens.


The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, says nothing about a "complete ban."  It says, _"The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed._"  Get it?

NO INFRINGEMENT.  No "partial ban," no incremental steps.  No government tracking.




> If you would pull your head out of your ass then you might learn something and would have less need of fear mongering attacks on me. Frankly I don't give a shit what you think of me because the trend exists and is moving. So you can take your ass wipe and sit on it for all I care.


Yup.  Us lemmings are running over the cliff, and into the pit of Marxism and government tyranny!  Hurry, or you'll be late!

Freedom is timeless.  Liberty is timeless.  Limited government, of the sort we have had and you want to abolish as "not trendy," work every time it is implemented.

Disarming the public also works.  Works to allow government oppression and tyranny.  Works to allow charismatic dictators, such as Lenin or Hitler, to implement their program.  Of course it does nothing to stop criminals; it just allows government jackboots to perpetrate THEIR crimes without fear.

Only a mindless follower would be swayed by or offer an argument about "the trend."

----------


## Devil505

> I assume you are engaging in moral relativism?


OK...define _"proper interpretation" please? (and who decides if it is proper?)_

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What did the Founding Fathers mean by "militia"?  You may attack the link but you cannot attack the words of the speakers.
> 
> http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm


The _Federalist Papers_ make it clear, the difference meant between "militia" and a "standing army."

----------


## Victory

> OK...define _"proper interpretation" please? (and who decides if it is proper?)_


Who do you think?

----------


## Invayne

> What did the Founding Fathers mean by "militia"?  You may attack the link but you cannot attack the words of the speakers.
> 
> http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm


*Richard Henry Lee:* A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselvesand include all men capable of bearing arms. 

End of story.

----------


## Invayne

> Yup.  Us lemmings are running over the cliff, and into the pit of Marxism and government tyranny!  Hurry, or you'll be late!


Late? Sounds like he's one of the Leaders.  :Smile:

----------


## Devil505

> Who do you think?


never mind.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I assume your definition of "proper interpretation" is one you agree with?


Well, there is that.... "most people" generally have a common understanding of the English language (for example, we understand the difference between speech and money).

Most people, if you ask them what "shall not infringe" means, they'll offer up a common understanding. Same thing for "Congress shall make no law" - those words are self-evident, they're crystal clear.

See, Devil, our Justices don't get to willy-nilly assign new meanings to words whenever it pleases them and call that "interpretation". That's not interpretation, it's bastardization and corruption and political hooliganism. (Not to mention a violation of the Oath of Office).

There most definitely is the connotation that the Justices are limited by the English Language.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I find it amusing that the argument is made the 2nd amendment would not apply to modern guns since the Founders only had muskets at the time it was written.  That makes as much sense as saying the 1st Amendment does not apply to television, radio, the Internet or telephones because only newspapers or town criers were in existence at the time.

----------

Invayne (10-24-2014),Sled Dog (10-24-2014),Victory (10-24-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I find it amusing that the argument is made the 2nd amendment would not apply to modern guns since the Founders only had muskets at the time it was written.  That makes as much sense as saying the 1st Amendment does not apply to television, radio, the Internet or telephones because only newspapers or town criers were in existence at the time.


_Cha-ching!!!_

I find it amusing when gun banners, who only want to cut down on gun crime, suggest that gun advocates want everybody running around with personal nukes.  Have you ever seen anybody get mugged with a nuke?  It doesn't turn out very well for the attacker even if he pulls the trigger and the cops never show up.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The trend seems to be towards more gun control so why don't the red necks get with the program and help to shape laws that we can live with? I support the idea of people owning simple firearms to defend themselves with but I don't see the need for assault weapons or those with high capacity magazines. Most of us can do fine with
> a basic revolver or a semi automatic handgun and with maybe a shotgun with a five round magazine or less.
> 
> The virtues of having weapons for personal defense are not outweighing the virtues for keeping the more deadly ones out of the hands of idiots. Yep, I may sound like a leftist but I am just trying to be practical about the issue.


The trend seems to be rather towards recalling fascist politicians that impose fascist gun grabbing dictates more than anything else.

Just look to Colorado.

Just look to the fact that you Rodents aren't campaigning to save your Senate seats by demanding more fascistic gun grabbing laws.

Just look to reality, Americans are not going to give up their one freedom that protects all the others.

----------


## Victory

> never mind.


If you say so.

(Separated by a common language.)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why do you keep blabbering on about irrelevant bullshit as if somebody were arguing against the constitutionality of having a Supreme Court. I've never in my years of forum posting ever seen anybody argue in favor of the abolition of the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are forever arguing a point nobody is interested in. You might as well be talking to the wind and shaking your fist at the sky.


Fascists have to argue with their strawmen.

The figments of their imagination are the only arguments they can win.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Do you even realize what a sheep you sound like?
> 
> Translation: All the lemmings are jumping off the cliff. So why don't all you rednecks get with the program and figure out how we can jump off the cliff in a way we can live with?
> 
> Answer: Because we're not lemmings, dammit! Don't you people have eyes that see? Don't you have the ability to THINK? To REASON? What the hell does the word "principles" mean to you? Do you know or do you just do what the trend tells you to do? Do you have any idea how your desire to follow the trend is manipulated by people with money and power to get you to vote for their policies and candidates? YOU are "Exhibit A" with respect to "Subjects of Propaganda and the Results of Manipulation." Do you have any idea what I'm talking about or do you just read what's trendy?
> 
> Yes, the Constitution trumps the trend. Well said JPT.


Rodents have eyes only for the ass of the Rodent in front of them.  They can't see the big picture, only men can stand up and see that.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I assume your definition of "proper interpretation" is one you agree with?


Well, let's put it plainly.

If you agree with a Supreme Court decision, it is almost certainly something contrary to the Constitution.

So, yeah, it has to be one I agree with, since unlike you I actually read thing.

----------


## QuaseMarco

I guess I'll put my 2 cent in. 
They do not necessarily empower, they protect.
 Firearms are a necessary evil for personal protection of self and family.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Who do you think?


I think, ultimately we the people decide what the Constituiton says, and to make that possible we the people, via the House and the Senate (but not the Prez) and via the state legislatures should reserve the right to tell the five unelected fascists in black dresses to get fucked when it's needed.

This would be done by an Amendment empowering 3/5 of the House and Senate, or 3/5 of the State LEGISLATURES (governor veto not allowed) to determine if a particularly odious ruling is to be thrown out.

One fine example would be the Kelo v New London decision.  States all over the place were passing local laws forbidding what ONE MAN on the Court ruled...but that has no bearing on any federal takings.  

At least 35 states have passed laws reforming their eminent domain practices as a result of the bullshit Supreme Court decision, which means those states could easily have overturned the decision entirely, IF they'd had the authority to do so.

----------


## Sled Dog

> never mind.


Yeah, they asked the wrong question.

How do you FEEL about the matter, @Devil505?

----------


## Devil505

> Well, there is that.... "most people" generally have a common understanding of the English language (for example, we understand the difference between speech and money).
> 
> Most people, if you ask them what "shall not infringe" means, they'll offer up a common understanding. Same thing for "Congress shall make no law" - those words are self-evident, they're crystal clear.
> 
> See, Devil, our Justices don't get to willy-nilly assign new meanings to words whenever it pleases them and call that "interpretation". That's not interpretation, it's bastardization and corruption and political hooliganism. (Not to mention a violation of the Oath of Office).
> 
> There most definitely is the connotation that the Justices are limited by the English Language.


OK...let's take the word "Infringe:"

*in·fringe*

_verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)


*in·fringed**in·fring·ing*

*Full Definition of INFRINGE*

_transitive verb_
*1*
*:*  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <_infringe_ a patent>


The SCOTUS has always ruled that "Regulation" is not infringement......which is an opinion.
Most of these things are "Opinions" and SC rulings are often referred to as *opinions.

*In law...SC *Opinions* are law.......period.

Do I agree with all SC opinions?...*Hell no!*
Should SC opinions be the law?...*Absolutely* or we'd have chaos.

----------


## Devil505

> Yeah, they asked the wrong question.
> 
> How do you FEEL about the matter, @Devil505?


See my post #250

----------


## Victory

> I guess I'll put my 2 cent in. 
> They do not necessarily empower, they protect.
>  Firearms are a necessary evil for personal protection of self and family.


I used to think that way as well.  Then I just bypassed the "necessary evil" part and call 'em a "necessary good."

If you've ever eaten grilled goose, antelope heart, venison, pheasant, or wild hog I think you'll agree there ain't nothing "evil" about that.

Same goes for plinking metal targets at 300 yards.  Or paper targets with a pistol at 10 yards.

Same goes for protecting yourself and your family from the unavoidable, inescapable, unpredictable bad elements of society.

Ain't nothing evil about that.  And have you ever seen how an auto or a semi-automatic works?  That's a thing o' beauty!

----------


## Victory

> Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is "guns" or "firearms" mentioned.  The word is "arms."
> _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> _So with that in mind, there are plenty of passages in the Bible that support the 2nd Amendment.  (As a lawyer you should already know these.)
> 
> Proverbs 25:26                                             ESV                          Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.    
> (You need arms to resist the wicked.)
> 
> 1 Samuel 13:19-20                                             ESV                              Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears. But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle,    
> ...


This should open up a wider discussion:

Why are slung shots, brass knuckles, slap jacks, and other devices illegal in so many states?  Aren't these examples of violations of the 2nd Amendment as well?

----------


## nonsqtr

> OK...let's take the word "Infringe:"
> 
> *in·fringe*
> 
> _verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )
> : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
> 
> 
> *in·fringed**in·fring·ing*
> ...


Well, that's one of the dictionary meanings. certainly. It's a derived meaning, though. "Infringe" is a territorial word, it means you're stepping over the line, you're "in-fringe"ing, you're violating someone else's territory.

An infringement is a boundary violation, and in this case it ties in perfectly with the concept of constitutional scope.

"Shall not be infringed" means the government has to stay on the other side of the line. They can't even set one teeny tiny little toe on the other side of it, otherwise it's an in-fringement, a violation of OUR territory. That territory doesn't belong to FedGov, it belongs to We the People and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Regulation is definitely infringement. There's no question about it. It's FedGov stepping over the line, into OUR territory where they're neither wanted nor appreciated. Now, most of us will "grudgingly accept" this little bit of "almost-violation", as long as it doesn't encumber or threaten us too much. Clearly, preventing a person from defending himself is a huge encumbrance, it's an enormous encumbrance! And therefore, when it comes right down to it, "most" of us will keep an unregistered weapon somewhere, just in case. Just in case FedGov decides that "today is the day" they're going to illegalize shotguns, or whatever their whim-du-jour happens to be. (That's the way it goes, some asshole uses a slingshot and suddenly they want to illegalize slingshots).

I'll be a monkey's uncle if FedGov is going to disarm me, today, tomorrow, or any other day. It's just not going to happen. Law or no law, it's not going to happen. My Constitution guarantees me that FedGov has to stay on the other side of that boundary, and if they don't, they can go straight to hell and stay there, and in that case maybe it's time to consider what those words "*to them*" really mean.

----------


## Hansel

> I used to think that way as well.  Then I just bypassed the "necessary evil" part and call 'em a "necessary good."
> 
> If you've ever eaten grilled goose, antelope heart, venison, pheasant, or wild hog I think you'll agree there ain't nothing "evil" about that.
> 
> Same goes for plinking metal targets at 300 yards.  Or paper targets with a pistol at 10 yards.
> 
> Same goes for protecting yourself and your family from the unavoidable, inescapable, unpredictable bad elements of society.
> 
> Ain't nothing evil about that.  And have you ever seen how an auto or a semi-automatic works?  That's a thing o' beauty!


Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?


 If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Most are shot by small hand guns. Those high capacity guns were given across the border by our own government. The citizens of America has a right to defend themselves foreign and domestic.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?


Do we need libburls deciding what other people "need"?  I get sick of this - according to loud libburls, I don't "need" a pickup truck; or a house in the suburbs; or a weapon; or half of my gross pay!  Who the FUCK made them gods, that they can decide what others "need"?

The Constitution is plain on this.  Try to change it, if you want to; but until that time, IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

----------

Invayne (10-24-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?


Do you need freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion or assembly?  Are you suggesting people should provide a _need_ for a Constitutional right before they can exercise that right?

----------

Invayne (10-24-2014),JustPassinThru (10-24-2014),sotmfs (11-04-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?



What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to bear arms?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

The Supreme Count cannot create the law.  It can only make rules enforceable by the government.  If the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment actually meant no one could own guns of any type would they be correct?  If the Constitution only means what the Supreme Court decides it means then the entire document is nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

----------

Green Man (10-27-2014),nonsqtr (10-24-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Do you need freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion or assembly?  Are you suggesting people should provide a _need_ for a Constitutional right before they can exercise that right?


No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.

Most citizens can't own machine guns, silencers or hand grenades just as citizens can't speak slander, fighting words or sedition.
The needs of society usually out way the needs of the individual.

----------


## Devil505

> What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to bear arms?


The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms....it doesn't guarantee the right to bear military arms or to be free from government regulation.
Regulation is not infringement....that's the law.

From 1994-2004 High capacity magazines were outlawed federally and they should be again. (that law was upheld by the SC btw)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.
> 
> The needs of society usually out way the needs of the individual.


That's not how it works, Devil. 

Rights are not apportioned according to need.

Rights are boundaries, they represent areas that are off limits to the concept of "need".

For instance - the freedom of speech is not compromised during wartime. Sedition then, is the same as sedition now. Treason then, same as now. "Nothing" in the Constitution changes based on the condition-du-jour, and in fact our Constitution becomes even more important in times of turmoil. 

The federal government is obligated by the social contract to uphold and defend individual rights, Devil. To the extent that those rights are "compromised", FedGov is violating the contract.

----------


## nonsqtr

Look, I'd like to raise the ante in this thread.

Here's my take: effective checks and balances between FedGov and We the People depends on *mutual* enforcement.

One-sided enforcement isn't good enough - in fact it's detrimental to the proper functioning of the system (it "corrupts" the system - resulting in exactly what we're seeing today - uncontested power grabs).

The federal government enforces its side of the contract by tossing people in jail who don't pay their taxes. And similarly, teeming angry hordes of We the People should be out in front of the White House with torches and pitchforks raised high every time those fucktards violate the Constitutional contract.

One sided enforcement is for Sheeple.

If you want to participate in this government, you need to be willing to put your personal ass on the line and actually enforce against the thieving greedy power-hungry weasels in Weaselton DC.

Believe me, those fuckers are going to push the envelope just as far as it can possibly go, and it's up to us the define and enforce the boundaries beyond which it "shall not go".

Reality is, our Elected Weasels need to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over them at all times. Anything less falls short of "eternal vigilance" on the part of We the People.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-25-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?


No.  I need a high capacity semi-auto rifle (get it the fuck right!) to kill people who are trying to kill me and loot my store in a riot.  Thanks for asking not that your opinion gets any weight in deciding what I need but thanks anyway.

----------


## nonsqtr

> From 1994-2004 High capacity magazines were outlawed federally and they should be again. (that law was upheld by the SC btw)


ROFL! A lot of good it did. (not)

See, that's a perfect example of the bassackwards thinking that goes on around this piece.

Devil, you can not stop people from buying high capacity magazines! You oughta know that better than anyone! If they can't get 'em at the local sporting goods store they'll just go down to the corner and get 'em from the nearest cartelista. Listen man, the people who really feel like they need hi-caps and are willing to go out of their way to get 'em, are just about unstoppable. It would be exactly like someone trying to buy booze during Prohibition, or anyone buying pot for the last forty years or so. No one gives a rat's ass about the federal firearms law! It doesn't do any good on the ground, and it's hellaciously expensive to "try" to enforce. And besides, you know very well that each and every one of those lying two-faced hypocrite weasel politicians has some serious firepower at their disposal. A couple of days ago one of 'em even got arrested with a loaded 9mm, drunk, with extra rounds in her pocket. This is a federal elected weasel, the people we're supposed to be taking our example from! And don't even start me on that dumb twit Feinstein, that would be a long rant.  :Wink:

----------


## Sled Dog

> The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms....it doesn't guarantee the right to bear military arms or to be free from government regulation.
> Regulation is not infringement....that's the law.
> 
> From 1994-2004 High capacity magazines were outlawed federally and they should be again. (that law was upheld by the SC btw)


Given THE FACT that the Second Amendment was written AND RATIFIED by persons knowing full well that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure THE PEOPLE have the arms required to put down military coups by people like you fascists, you can bet your ass that the Second Amendment most certainly does encompass ALL small arms carried by infrantry in modern combat, just as it did in the 1780's when it was ratified.

You people keep whining that the Constitution is a living breathing document that covers the technologica changes associated with travel, communications, medicine, and toilets.

That means it must also cover improvements in weaponry.

Regulation IS infringement. That's the DEFINITION.

infringe - 1 to break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to obey
2 to destroy or hinder
3 to break in; *encroach or trespass upon the rights of others.*

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-25-2014),Invayne (10-25-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.
> 
> Most citizens can't own machine guns, silencers or hand grenades just as citizens can't speak slander, fighting words or sedition.
> The needs of society usually out way the needs of the individual.


Only in fascist la-la lands.

In America, under the Constitution, the ability of "society" to infringe on the desires of the individual are clearly defined and extremely limited.

One of those areas is gun ownership, a right that predates even the evolution of speech.

Not that you're going to understand that statement, since you've never understood that statement before, but the fact of the matter is that the human race evolved as it did because it had WEAPONS in it's hands.

----------


## Sled Dog

> See my post #250


Yes, you cited an imaginary definition of the word infringed, one created by fascist gun grabbing liberals butt-wipes that made you feel good.

Since MY dictionary, The Webster's New Encyclopdic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1977 predates the more recent King Ebola gun grabbing revisionist hysteria by four decades, that's the official dictionary for such matters.

Because I said it was.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Do you need a high capacity assault rifle to kill the game you speak of?


Since the Constitution defines as the appropriate "game" for Second Amendment purposes to be the politician seeking to be a tyrant, the answer is unreserved YES.

----------

Invayne (10-25-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.


Let's go back to this one.

What about the right to say "no"?

That's clearly covered under the Ninth, Tenth, and Thirteenth Amendments.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.


Yes.

a. that's a false statement
b. we're talking about the federal government (only), and
c. fedgov is not allowed to pull powers out of its butt

Let's do 'em one at a time.

a. That's a false statement.

FedGov only has "jurisdiction" over the rights that it's been specifically granted authority over, By The People.

FedGov has absolutely no jurisdiction over anything in the domain of the States and the People, which is any Power not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

Our Constitution is an affirmative grant of power, not a blank check.

b. We're talking about the federal government (only)

Our federal government does not "grant" political rights. It is commanded to uphold and defend rights that already exist, by the Constitution of the United States, which is the highest law in the land and to which even every single federal elected weasel must adhere. 

Our Constitution specifies the relationship between FedGov and the States. It commands FedGov to guarantee to the States (and therefore to the People) a certain form of government. It also specifically commands the States to uphold the same political rights that FedGov must uphold.

There is no part of our Constitution that is a blank check for our federal government. To the extent that the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause are being used as such, the "interpretation" is fraudulent and the interpreters are violating their Oaths of Office.

----------

Green Man (10-27-2014)

----------


## freyasman

> The Second Amendment was never intended to sanction any right of citizens to take up arms against the government.   That is not lawful, and even to advocate such action constitutes a federal offence.  Likewise, the right of self-defense exists only as allowed by law, as many that have been convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.


False.

----------


## Devil505

> ROFL! A lot of good it did. (not)


Actually I've posted stats that show it did between 1994-2004.
What the hell does a civilian need a 100 round drum magazine for?





> Devil, you can not stop people from buying high capacity magazines! You oughta know that better than anyone! If they can't get 'em at the local sporting goods store they'll just go down to the corner and get 'em from the nearest cartelista. Listen man, the people who really feel like they need hi-caps and are willing to go out of their way to get 'em, are just about unstoppable.


Our worst problem these days are suicidal kids who grab weapons at home, bring them to school and mow down other kids.

Criminals will always get what they want but crazies won't.
Criminals want money and crazies want to kill and be killed.

The ....benefit vs danger to society...balance is heavily tilted towards danger here.




I am a gun owner and a full believer that citizens should have the right to own guns for sport and self-defense.
I am not a believer that we need howitzers, bazookas, machine guns, hi cap magazines or other military weapons to do either.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Look, I'd like to raise the ante in this thread.
> 
> Here's my take: effective checks and balances between FedGov and We the People depends on *mutual* enforcement.
> 
> One-sided enforcement isn't good enough - in fact it's detrimental to the proper functioning of the system (it "corrupts" the system - resulting in exactly what we're seeing today - uncontested power grabs).
> 
> The federal government enforces its side of the contract by tossing people in jail who don't pay their taxes. And similarly, teeming angry hordes of We the People should be out in front of the White House with torches and pitchforks raised high every time those fucktards violate the Constitutional contract.
> 
> One sided enforcement is for Sheeple.
> ...



Wow
That is perhaps the best post on this topic I have ever seen.  Good show

----------


## Graham Garner

Mutual enforcement? - No, we as citizens do not enforce the law.  But participation in the process? - Certainly yes; we can, and certainly, should do that.

I think that there are times that demand a reexamination of our values; and, more fundamentally, what we stand for as Americans.  Do we stand for freedom and equality?  Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. However, such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed. 

America is a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Actually I've posted stats that show it did between 1994-2004.
> What the hell does a civilian need a 100 round drum magazine for?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> ..



To defend us from people like you who are more than willing to take our rights away from us on a whim.  You speak of the 2nd Amendment based on "safety".  What if after the 2nd Amendment is trashed speech is then addressed in order not to "inflame" the people to violence?  Would you agree to any assault on the 1st Amendment?  

I would like to postulate that it really doesn't matter if the Bill of Rights are written into the Constitution specifically or not.  The idea that ANY authority not specifically listed in the main body of the Constitution is off limits to the federal government should be reason enough to keep the Feds out of our gun lockers.  

It is also amusing to me that a portion of the Constitution is as clear as can possibly be if examined in the light of the times it was written is constantly attacked yet an "implied" right of privacy and the ability of a woman to end the life of the unborn is sacrosanct.  Its just more liberal stinking thinking in my opinion

----------


## Devil505

> a. that's a false statement
> b. we're talking about the federal government (only), and
> c. fedgov is not allowed to pull powers out of its butt


How many times do we have to go over the same argument?

Since 1803 (Marbury v Madison) the federal government can do whatever a majority of nine SCOTUS justices agree it can do.
*Anything that is not reversed by a future SC opinion, Con. amendment or rebellion.

*I am not arguing that this is the best possible solution to maintain order in this country but I am arguing it's all we've got *and it's the law.*

----------


## Devil505

> To defend us from people like you who are more than willing to take our rights away from us on a whim.  You speak of the 2nd Amendment based on "safety".  What if after the 2nd Amendment is trashed speech is then addressed in order not to "inflame" the people to violence?  Would you agree to any assault on the 1st Amendment?  
> 
> I would like to postulate that it really doesn't matter if the Bill of Rights are written into the Constitution specifically or not.  The idea that ANY authority not specifically listed in the main body of the Constitution is off limits to the federal government should be reason enough to keep the Feds out of our gun lockers.  
> 
> It is also amusing to me that a portion of the Constitution is as clear as can possibly be if examined in the light of the times it was written is constantly attacked yet an "implied" right of privacy and the ability of a woman to end the life of the unborn is sacrosanct.  Its just more liberal stinking thinking in my opinion


See my post #278





> What if after the 2nd Amendment is trashed speech is then addressed in order not to "inflame" the people to violence? Would you agree to any assault on the 1st Amendment?


Some of you Righties insist on arguing against opinions I don't hold but it's easier to put words in your opponents mouth and then argue against those words than it is to actually listen to what I'm saying!

I have always said that *I personally disagree with many SC opinions/decisions......but I don't deny their authority to make those decisions because that's the law!*

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

What should the government have the "right" to do that the private citizen cannot do for himself?  If the concept outlined in the Declaration of Independence that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed does that not mean we have the rights and privileges to do what we have allowed the government to do for us.  If we cannot commit a specific act why should the government be allowed to do so?  Does society belong to "we the people" or does it belong to the government regardless if called king, potentate or president?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> See my post #278



That only speaks to the beginning of allowing the Constitution to be perverted.  It does not speak to the logic and truth of the document itself.

----------


## Graham Garner

The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  It is the Constitution (not the Declaration of Independence) that established the United States as a nation under the rule of law; and stands as security for out rights and liberty by law.  Unlike the First Amendment, which is a direct grant of fundamental rights and freedoms, the Second Amendment does not grant any rights - only protections.  That right is not unfettered, much less absolute.  It is subject to both federal and state law. And it certainly does not extend to taking up arms against the government.

----------


## Devil505

> What should the government have the "right" to do that the private citizen cannot do for himself?


Since "We the people" are the government collectively.....I'll pick the most obvious example: Execute criminals for heinous crimes....but there are many others that require a decision agreed on the many, not the one.

Vigilantism is a much worse system then the legal system we (government) have established.

----------


## Devil505

> That only speaks to the beginning of allowing the Constitution to be perverted.  It does not speak to the logic and truth of the document itself.


I added an edit to my post

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Since "We the people" are the government collectively.....I'll pick the most obvious example: Execute criminals for heinous crimes....but there are many others that require a decision agreed on the many, not the one.
> 
> Vigilantism is a much worse system then the legal system we (government) have established.



Someone comes into my home and attacks my daughther.  I get up, get out my shotgun and shoot the bastard, killing him.  Did I not just execute someone for a heinous crime?  Would I, in most jurisdictions, not be arrested for defending the life of my child?  We have given the state the authority to carry out those executions in our behalf.  We would still maintain the right to defend and protect ourselves if the state refuses to do so.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  It is the Constitution (not the Declaration of Independence) that established the United States as a nation under the rule of law; and stands as security for out rights and liberty by law.  Unlike the First Amendment, which is a direct grant of fundamental rights and freedoms, the Second Amendment does not grant any rights - only protections.  That right is not unfettered, much less absolute.  It is subject to both federal and state law. And it certainly does not extend to taking up arms against the government.



Once again you prove your narrow minded ignorance.  The Declaration of Independence establishes the concept of the rights of the individual.  The Constitution provides the means for the government to protect those rights.  Do you think (1) rights exist in a vacuum or (2) there are no such things as "rights" only force by the government?

Truthfully, I don't think you have a clue as to the meaning of the word "right".  And truthfully, if you are an attorney you would be the last I would even consider hiring for something as mundane as creating a will.

----------


## Devil505

> Someone comes into my home and attacks my daughther.  I get up, get out my shotgun and shoot the bastard, killing him.  Did I not just execute someone for a heinous crime?  Would I, in most jurisdictions, not be arrested for defending the life of my child?  We have given the state the authority to carry out those executions in our behalf.  We would still maintain the right to defend and protect ourselves if the state refuses to do so.


You have the right to self and family defense.
Only government has the right to defend society against such dangers. (you shoot a convicted murderer as he's being transported to death row and you'll be charged with first degree murder)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> You have the right to self and family defense.
> Only government has the right to defend society against such dangers. (you shoot a convicted murderer as he's being transported to death row and you'll be charged with first degree murder)


That is an entirely different scenario than the one I suggested.

----------


## Devil505

> That is an entirely different scenario than the one I suggested.


What scenario would you suggest that would alow a citizen to shoot another citizen absent doing so in self-defense...... without at least being potentially charged with a crime that a jury of his peers may have to hear?

Citizens can't just go around shooting one-another with no consequences.
Again, common-sense was not prohibited in the Constitution.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I can only defend myself or my family?  So if I find a terrorist attacking you with a hatchet I would be wrong in shooting him?  Bear in mind I have no idea who you are, you are not me nor are you (as far as I know) a member of my family.

Who hired the first sheriffs in the territories of the Old West?  Was it the federal government?  The Territorial Governor?

----------

Sled Dog (10-25-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> What scenario would you suggest that would alow a citizen to shoot another citizen absent doing so in self-defense without at least being potentially charged with a crime?


None, nor should the government have that right

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I am going sailing.  The temps are almost up to 60.

Have a nice day

----------


## Devil505

> I can only defend myself or my family?  So if I find a terrorist attacking you with a hatchet I would be wrong in shooting him?  Bear in mind I have no idea who you are, you are not me nor are you (as far as I know) a member of my family.
> 
> Who hired the first sheriffs in the territories of the Old West?  Was it the federal government?  The Territorial Governor?


That was not my argument and again common-sense applies here.
Your act would be looked at by the authorities but I doubt you would be charged with anything unless you accidentally shot a bystander like happened with the axe wielding attack.

----------


## johnson

> None, nor should the government have that right


If I remember correctly there was a report on the internet, with video, of a senior citizen shooting a robber at a small store, thus foiling the attempt. 
I doubt the old gent was charged for doing this good deed.  

One should look at the motive for a citizen shooting before deciding blame.

----------


## Devil505

> If I remember correctly there was a report on the internet, with video, of a senior citizen shooting a robber at a small store, thus foiling the attempt. 
> I doubt the old gent was charged for doing this good deed.  
> 
> One should look at the motive for a citizen shooting before deciding blame.


Of course.
Like I said...nowhere does the Constitution require the suspension of common sense.

----------


## Devil505

> I am going sailing.  The temps are almost up to 60.
> 
> Have a nice day


Have fun.

----------


## Victory

> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.


Nobody ever said the Declaration of Independence was an _authority_ for anything.  Nobody.

YOU, however, said that the D of I is not a foundational document.  It IS a foundational document.  Now you know it, so you're trying to change the discussion.  You're still wrong.

Why did you change your mind?  Why are you now talking about "authority" instead of "foundation?"

----------


## johnson

> That was not my argument and again common-sense applies here.
> Your act would be looked at by the authorities but I doubt you would be charged with anything unless you accidentally shot a bystander like happened with the axe wielding attack.


I would think that an accidental shooting would  carry a very light punishment. Once again, the motive of the shooter must be examined to determine fault and the degree of it.  One must weigh the good he did against the damage he did.  I realize that self serving wingnuts don't think that way. Thank God juries are made up of peers. I have been on several civil suit jury panels and have seen how the selection process works. The name of the game is to give the 
defendant an even chance to present his case to an impartial jury.  One more than one occasion I stood up to the maddening crowd and I usually won my
POV.  I think there was a movie where a famous actor turned the tables in a biased jury room. Henry Fonda maybe?

Before rushing to judgment it may help if people would put themselves in the place of the suspect or the accused but urban rednecks (aka bigots) don't have this capability or empathy.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Actually I've posted stats that show it did between 1994-2004.
> What the hell does a civilian need a 100 round drum magazine for?


To shoot 101 bullets without re-loading.

You don't know much about guns, do you?





> Our worst problem these days are suicidal kids who grab weapons at home, bring them to school and mow down other kids.


No.  Our worst problem today is the fascist rodents who want to steal ALL of our freedoms and can't because they haven't succeeded in stealing our guns.




> Criminals will always get what they want but crazies won't.


Crazies who want a gun to shoot people are criminals, and hence your sentence, like just about everything you post, doesn't make any sense.

One always wonders why you post, since you're posts are semantically empty.   Why do you do that?




> Criminals want money and crazies want to kill and be killed.


Oh.

Oh?

OH!  That's right.  You're pro-death.  You have ZERO opposition to abortion and 100% opposition to protecting babies, that's why you were slinging guns in the DEA.   Naturally you don't believe plain old murder is a crime and thus you don't believe murder for fun is committed by criminals.

Who let you out of your cage?

The ....benefit vs danger to society...balance is heavily tilted towards danger here.




> I am a gun owner and a full believer that citizens should have the right to own guns for sport and self-defense.


You don't believe that.   

Just read your own posts.  We do.

Sometimes.




> U am not a believer that we need howitzers, bazookas, machine guns, hi cap magazines or other military weapons to do either.


Your religion is your business, but the First Amendment forbids Congress from implementing your religion as federal law.

----------


## Victory

> Mutual enforcement? - No, we as citizens do not enforce the law.  But participation in the process? - Certainly yes; we can, and certainly, should do that.
> 
> I think that there are times that demand a reexamination of our values; and, more fundamentally, what we stand for as Americans.  Do we stand for freedom and equality?  Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. However, such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed. 
> 
> America is a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.


You and I cannot agree on the definition of freedom.

Equality is not an ideal.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Mutual enforcement? - No, we as citizens do not enforce the law. But participation in the process? - Certainly yes; we can, and certainly, should do that.
> 
> I think that there are times that demand a reexamination of our values; and, more fundamentally, what we stand for as Americans. Do we stand for freedom and equality? Freedom and equality are ideals; but, absent a perfect world, no one can live in society and be entirely free or completely equal. For every freedom there is a corresponding obligation to others, and equality is limited to the extent that such obligations are mutual, and others do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise. In this, the promise of America is not freedom and equality, but rather liberty and equal opportunity and justice under law. However, such promise cannot be kept when government instituted by men favors the few in derogation of the many, or serves the special interests at the expense of the public interest, and when the rich and powerful can have more justice than the poor and oppressed. 
> 
> America is a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.


"do not demand rights without responsibility for their exercise."

You mean like the law abiding citizen can, under the law that is known as the Constitution, own ANY gun he wishes to purchase.

That same citizen may be shot or arrested and put in jail, if he USES that weapon to harm others outside of the natural requirements of defense of self, citizens, or property.

Clearly there's no possible logical objection to this.  

So you must agree, according to what you posted.

King Ebola is the tyrant you love.

----------


## Sled Dog

> How many times do we have to go over the same argument?


For as long as you persist in pursuing the wrong side.

Stop repeating failed fascist arguments and we'll stop spanking you with the truth.

Ain't complicated.




> Since 1803 (Marbury v Madison) the federal government can do whatever a majority of nine SCOTUS justices agree it can do.


Cite that grant of authority from the Constitution.

We know you can't.

You know you can't.

Because the Constitution does not say what you claim.

----------


## Sled Dog

Well, the Constitution DOES reserve to CONGRESS (not King Ebola) certain powers that only sovereign nations can hold, such as the making of treaties, the regulation of trade, the coining of money, powers that it makes no sense for an individual person to have.

But the Constitution is very clearly worded about what those powers are and what limits there are on the powers the government has.

The Constitution states clearly that regulating gun ownership isn't permitted.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. It is the Constitution (not the Declaration of Independence) that established the United States as a nation under the rule of law; and stands as security for out rights and liberty by law. Unlike the First Amendment, which is a direct grant of fundamental rights and freedoms, the Second Amendment does not grant any rights - only protections. That right is not unfettered, much less absolute. It is subject to both federal and state law. And it certainly does not extend to taking up arms against the government.


Actually, it was the Declaration of Independence that established the United States as a sovereign nation, it was the Articles of Confederation that established the rule of law, and it was the Constitution of the United States of America that improved that union.

And, according to the Second Amendment, the right of gun ownership is indeed unfettered.

Also the First Amendment GRANTS NOTHING.  It GIVES the people NOT ONE RIGHT.

It says "Congress, butt out.  Ain't your concern, you won't interfere".

But it says it in better language.

You are a TRUE PRODUCT of public education, aren't you?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Vigilantism is a much worse system then the legal system we (government) have established.


Didn't break my heart to learn that Thug Martin got his stupid thug punk ass shot.

So self-defense has a place in society.

----------


## Sled Dog

> That was not my argument and again common-sense applies here.


Actually, that was EXACTLY your argument.

English is a tricky language, some can't master it.  I suggest you start posting in chinese.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I would think that an accidental shooting would carry a very light punishment. Once again, the motive of the shooter must be examined to determine fault and the degree of it. One must weigh the good he did against the damage he did. I realize that self serving wingnuts don't think that way. Thank God juries are made up of peers. I have been on several civil suit jury panels and have seen how the selection process works. The name of the game is to give the 
> defendant an even chance to present his case to an impartial jury. One more than one occasion I stood up to the maddening crowd and I usually won my
> POV. I think there was a movie where a famous actor turned the tables in a biased jury room. Henry Fonda maybe?
> 
> Before rushing to judgment it may help if people would put themselves in the place of the suspect or the accused but urban rednecks (aka bigots) don't have this capability or empathy.


Twelve Angry Men.

More importantly than the father of the Fonda Bitch was Jack Klugman.

----------


## Devil505

Some of you keep insisting that the SC doesn't have judicial review because it's not spelled out in the Constitution itself but you're simply wrong....*it does have that authority.

*("should it" is a totally different question but *that it does is fact* and is simply not open to debate.....Sled Dog/Mayor Snorkum's numerous spams to the contrary not withstanding!)

----------


## Devil505

> I would think that an accidental shooting would  carry a very light punishment.


I agree in most cases and the charge would be negligence......obviously depending on the circumstances.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No Rights are unregulated/Unrestricted.
> 
> Most citizens can't own machine guns, silencers or hand grenades just as citizens can't speak slander, fighting words or sedition.
> *The needs of society usually out way the needs of the individual.*


This is an excellent summation of the primary difference between left and right;  the Left believes the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the Right believes the rights of individuals outweigh the "needs of society".  It is the compromise of those two concepts where we find the Constitution of the United States.

----------

usfan (11-15-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> This is an excellent summation of the primary difference between left and right;  the Left believes the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the Right believes the rights of individuals outweigh the "needs of society".  It is the compromise of those two concepts where we find the Constitution of the United States.


Put another way the Right believes this:

.......................*Mine!!*............................

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Put another way the Right believes this:
> 
> .......................*Mine!!*............................


Incorrect, but it's clear to me why you can't see the difference between individual rights and individual property.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Some of you keep insisting that the SC doesn't have judicial review because it's not spelled out in the Constitution itself but you're simply wrong....*it does have that authority.
> 
> *("should it" is a totally different question but *that it does is fact* and is simply not open to debate.....Sled Dog/Mayor Snorkum's numerous spams to the contrary not withstanding!)


Fine, cite the clause of the Constitution that specifically grants the courts the power to overturn law, rewrite law, and be expempt from criticism.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Some of you keep insisting that the SC doesn't have judicial review because it's not spelled out in the Constitution itself but you're simply wrong....*it does have that authority.
> 
> *("should it" is a totally different question but *that it does is fact* and is simply not open to debate.....Sled Dog/Mayor Snorkum's numerous spams to the contrary not withstanding!)



Back from my sail.  It was great. 

Anyway, I never said the SC doesn't have judicial review.  I said that review does not always adhere to the Constitution and the SC cannot "make law" out of whole cloth like it did with Roe v Wade.  In the beginning there was an argument regarding the role of Supreme Court.  Frankly, I think there needs to be some final arbitar, I just don't think the SC is always right and when it isn't, when it does rule against the provisions of the Constitution then the citizens have the God Given right to ignore that ruling.

----------


## Devil505

> Fine, cite the clause of the Constitution that specifically grants the courts the power to overturn law, rewrite law, and be expempt from criticism.


Cite the clause of the Constitution that *specifically* authorizes the formation of the USAF or *specifically* makes bank robbery a federal crime.

----------


## Devil505

> Incorrect, but it's clear to me why you can't see the difference between individual rights and individual property.


Glad I could help.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Cite the clause of the Constitution that *specifically* authorizes the formation of the USAF or *specifically* makes bank robbery a federal crime.


Your confession that the Constitution does not do what you claim is noted.


However, in answer to your desperate plea for assistance reading a document completely foreign to your fascist world view:

The Congress should not have created an Air Force, it should have left the Army in charge of the Army Air Corps until the Constitution was ratified to create the Air Force.   NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN.

Since Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce (a word which means "trade" and ONLY "trade", neither manufacturing nor agriculture is included in the term), and since banks are trading in currency, something that travels over state lines, it's perfectly normal for the federal government to make robbing something so pertinent to interstate trade a federal crime.

So you're not familiar with the Interstate Commerce Clause, of course,  because it's almost as restrictive in it's meaning as the "general welfare" phrase, which isn't a clause but is something you have no clue about.

----------


## Devil505

> Back from my sail.  It was great. 
> 
> Anyway, I never said the SC doesn't have judicial review.  I said that review does not always adhere to the Constitution and the SC cannot "make law" out of whole cloth like it did with Roe v Wade.  In the beginning there was an argument regarding the role of Supreme Court.  Frankly, I think there needs to be some final arbitar, I just don't think the SC is always right and when it isn't, when it does rule against the provisions of the Constitution then the citizens have the God Given right to ignore that ruling.


I agree with all you say up until your last sentence. (except the Roe v Wade part)
Citizens can't be allowed to pick and choose what laws they feel like obeying and you know that's an absurd idea.

----------


## Devil505

> Your confession that the Constitution does not do what you claim is noted.
> 
> 
> However, in answer to your desperate plea for assistance reading a document completely foreign to your fascist world view:
> 
> The Congress should not have created an Air Force, it should have left the Army in charge of the Army Air Corps until the Constitution was ratified to create the Air Force.   NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN.
> 
> Since Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce (a word which means "trade" and ONLY "trade", neither manufacturing nor agriculture is included in the term), and since banks are trading in currency, something that travels over state lines, it's perfectly normal for the federal government to make robbing something so pertinent to interstate trade a federal crime.
> 
> So you're not familiar with the Interstate Commerce Clause, of course,  because it's almost as restrictive in it's meaning as the "general welfare" phrase, which isn't a clause but is something you have no clue about.


So you're agreeing with me that interpretation of the Constitution gives authorization for both the USAF and bank robbery charges being federal
Thanks for proving my point that the Constitution doesn't have to specifically contain certain words ....but interpretation is required.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I agree with all you say up until your last sentence. (except the Roe v Wade part)
> Citizens can't be allowed to pick and choose what laws they feel like obeying and you know that's an absurd idea.


Indeed. If your masters dictate a rule, it must be followed. It is morally wrong to violate the dictates of your masters in the political classes. You'd have made a good German.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-27-2014),Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

tl/dnr

I've got access to a bunch of guns,

...
well, once I shoot the lock off my son's gun safe, that is   :Smiley20: 
...

and I DEFINITELY feel empowered to defend and protect myself!

----------


## Devil505

> Indeed. If your masters dictate a rule, it must be followed. It is morally wrong to violate the dictates of your masters in the political classes. You'd have made a good German.


We are a nation of laws and we have legal ways to change laws that we don't like.
Disobeying laws is your choice but don't cry when you have to pay penalties if you break them.

----------


## Network

Glad to know we're a civilized nation with laws. I was certain we were a rogue empire of death.

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## squidward

> We are a nation of laws and we have legal ways to change laws that we don't like.
> Disobeying laws is your choice but don't cry when you have to pay penalties if you break them.


the topic is government breaking laws. Do try to keep up.

----------


## Network

*executive order

I've never voted about a law that congress did or most likely did not read. I'm always asked to vote for _people_, more often the ones with more money coming from somewhere.

democracy depends on _you people_? then it's doomed. I'd rather live under theocratic rule of the 10 commandments, simple as that.

----------


## sotmfs

> What kind of pussy swears off weaponry because of a fucking _BB gun_ accident, that didn't even draw blood???


I quit driving because I had an accident. Not really.
I quit driving fast because I had an accident.Not really.

LI quit drinking because I had a hangover.Not really.
 I should quit this stupid post.OK

----------


## Sled Dog

> We are a nation of laws and we have legal ways to change laws that we don't like.
> Disobeying laws is your choice but don't cry when you have to pay penalties if you break them.


We can't be a nation of laws when King Ebola can willy-nilly alter and refuse to comply with his own MessiahCare Health Destruction Act.

We can't be a nation of laws when the Supreme Court illegally proclaims that the unconstitutionally intrusive MessiahCare Heath Destruction Act is Constitutional because they re-wrote the bill ....which was illegal in itself, but which also placed the entier MessiahCare Health Destruction Act in violation of the Originations Clause.

And we certainly can't be a nation of laws when the fake gun regulation laws override the clearly stated non-infringement clause of the Constitution.

----------

Mordent (10-26-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.


Seems to me someone has an inherent misunderstanding of what authority "is" and exactly where it comes from.

How can I say this - the Declaration of Independence is more of an "authority" even though it's not the law.

You figure it out.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

> America is a nation of laws and not men. But the law can be both used and abused by men; and so it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to oversee those who make and enforce the laws and administer justice lest our democratic institutions be turned into a tyranny over us.


How about we get down to earth with this concept? Make it concrete. George HW Bush was responsible for a little fiasco named Iran/Contra. It began when a pilot named Eugene Hasenfus was shot down, remember him? Well, it turned out later that the whole thing wasn't about weapons or hostages, it was about drugs and drug money. 

George HW Bush also has a relationship with a fellow named Felix Rodriguez. Yes, the Watergate burglar. One and the same. But the interesting part of the relationship goes all the way back to the Bay of Pigs, and most significantly there are some issues involving Salvador Allende in Chile and a certain diplomat named Orlando Letelier. Is any of this ringing a bell with you?

Now, if it were "any other citizen", this probably wouldn't be that big of a deal - only *this was the President of the United States*, engaging in illegal drug smuggling and state sponsored terrorism.

And here you are, telling me we're a nation of laws and not men.

*The President of the United States*, I say.

Now, would you like to talk to me about "authority" again? The law right now says that it's the *President*'s decision what's classified and what's not, and what's a matter of national security and what's not. Nixon believed that as president he could violate the law with impunity, and this current clown seems to believe the same thing. The asshole before this one not only believed it, he lived it. George the Shrub made torture an official instrument of national policy. Torture violates every law known to man, ranging from the local to the state to the federal level, not to mention dozens of treaties to which we are a signatory, not to mention the UN and all the stuff that goes on "outside" our borders -

And here you are telling me we're a nation of laws and not men.

Okay, so then - what is the difference between what you call "oversee" and what I call "mutual enforcement"?

What good is it going to do to "watch" the president violate the law with impunity? I suggest that any meaningful oversight does in fact involve enforcement, otherwise it's not meaningful and it's not oversight.

----------


## nonsqtr

> How many times do we have to go over the same argument?
> 
> Since 1803 (Marbury v Madison) the federal government can do whatever a majority of nine SCOTUS justices agree it can do.


That is not the case. Marbury v Madison does not say that, Devil.




> *Anything that is not reversed by a future SC opinion, Con. amendment or rebellion.
> 
> *I am not arguing that this is the best possible solution to maintain order in this country but I am arguing it's all we've got *and it's the law.*


Once again Devil, the Supreme Court is constrained to interpret within the Constitution. It is expressly forbidden from making law.

It is therefore *not permissible* for our Supreme Nincompoops to assign new meanings to words in the English language, and call that "interpretation".

That is not interpretation, it is *corruption*.

*The Supreme Assholes are not allowed to make law, and creating new meanings for words is making law.*

Devil: the law is not whatever the Robed Morons say it is. That concept is a non-starter. If the law is whatever 9 robed fools say it is, then we might as well not have any law. We might as well just take the entire US code and toss it in the trash can. Why? It doesn't matter, right? The law is whatever the Morons say it is, and what's written down doesn't matter.

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),Mordent (10-26-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

HEY, @Graham Garner!

Wanna know the best part of Neg'ing someone?

When the freakin' message is :




> The page at thepoliticsforums.com says:
> 
> thanks for deducting reputation from this user.


It's like, even the non-a.i. prog sort of hates you.  ROFLMAO!!!

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),Sled Dog (10-26-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

The best argument I've heard from Devil and Graham is that the law is "authority" and there are consequences for disobeying it.

My position is that human nature is a higher authority than any law written by man, and there are very serious consequences for being arrogant enough to try to play God and change it.

If it comes down to a choice between human nature and the law, I'll place my faith in human nature every time. The law is whimsical, fallible, and at the present moment, corrupt. Why should I place faith in a corrupt institution? That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, human nature hasn't changed for the last ten thousand years of recorded history, and it won't change for the next ten thousand either. It's been well studied and well documented, and people in cultures of all kinds (from halfway around the globe who've never interacted) generally agree on what kinds of alignment need to take place in terms of political rights and human nature.

The issue is not whether SCOTUS has the power to make decisions - the issue is whether anyone cares. The issue is whether anyone cares a ) that they're making bad decisions, and b ) that they're making any decisions at all. New York City still has a jaywalking law on the books. Prior to 1991 they hadn't written a jaywalking ticket in 87 years. That's because no one cares about that stupid idiotic law - the pedestrians certainly don't care (because they're the ones jaywalking), and the cops don't care (because they're the ones "not" writing the tickets), and the city doesn't care ('cause they're not pressuring the cops to write more jaywalking tickets), so like, why is that law still on the books? How about an automatic sunset clause of... say.... 20 years for every single law? That's 5 presidential elections, that oughta be more than enough.

----------

fyrenza (10-26-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I quit driving because I had an accident. Not really.
> I quit driving fast because I had an accident.Not really.
> 
> LI quit drinking because I had a hangover.Not really.
>  I should quit this stupid post.OK


I quit drinking _and_ driving because of an accident.   Really.  :Smile: 

Now I have to pick one or the other.

----------


## Devil505

> Once again Devil, the Supreme Court is constrained to interpret within the Constitution. It is expressly forbidden from making law.


OK my friend...so who/what has the power to decide that they haven't decided within the Constitution or made law?








> It is therefore *not permissible* for our Supreme Nincompoops to assign new meanings to words in the English language, and call that "interpretation".
> 
> That is not interpretation, it is *corruption*.
> 
> *The Supreme Assholes are not allowed to make law, and creating new meanings for words is making law.*
> 
> Devil: the law is not whatever the Robed Morons say it is. That concept is a non-starter. If the law is whatever 9 robed fools say it is, then we might as well not have any law. We might as well just take the entire US code and toss it in the trash can. Why? It doesn't matter, right? The law is whatever the Morons say it is, and what's written down doesn't matter.


OK...so who/what has the power to decide that they haven't decided within the Constitution or made law?
What is the legal mechanism to reverse their decision? (beyond amendment, which is practically impossible to do in this day and age.....there is no way to reverse their decisions so what they say is the law for all practical purposes)

----------


## Graham Garner

. . .

----------


## Devil505

> The issue is not whether SCOTUS has the power to make decisions - the issue is whether anyone cares.


While we both agree the SC has made some bad decisions we will disagree on which ones were bad.

My example of a bad decision was Bush v Gore where they stepped into state powers and told the state (Fla) to stop counting votes and thereby appointed GW Bush as President? (in my book and many others..that was unconstitutional...yet Bush was sworn in as President, right?

Who cares about SC decisions?...*We all should!
*
(my resolution is never to vote four a Republican President because they select far right justices)

----------


## Victory

> The best argument I've heard from Devil and Graham is that the law is "authority" and there are consequences for disobeying it.


But that's like saying, "There are consequences for touching a hot stove.  You get burned."

Thanks Graham!  Thanks Devil!  You sure cleared up some things in my life.  This explains why by ice cream gets all melty and hot when I put it on the stove.  All this time I've been thinking the stove is the refrigerator!  Silly me!  :Geez:

----------


## Sled Dog

> While we both agree the SC has made some bad decisions we will disagree on which ones were bad.


That's because you hate the United States and support all efforts to harm it.




> My example of a bad decision was Bush v Gore


See what I mean?

----------


## nonsqtr

> What is the legal mechanism to reverse their decision? (beyond amendment, *which is practically impossible to do in this day and age*.....


Okay, now we're getting somewhere. We're talking about mechanics, logistics.

First, who told you amendment is "impossible"? Betcha it's the *politicians* who said that, right? And that's only because they're completely full of it, they have brown stuff where their gray matter should be. Amendment is not impossible - but it does require the agreement of 2/3 of the politicians.

Now I ask you - the War Powers resolution had a 2/3 agreement, the AUMF had a 2/3 agreement, even the entirely un-Constitution Patriot Act had a 2/3 agreement - *so which shit-for-brains fool is telling us that 2/3 agreements are impossible? ???*

You're absolutely right Devil, participation is the key, and "impossible" is tantamount to encouraging non-participation.

You just *do* it, that's all. The simple truth is We the People have been doing a very poor job of defining our representation.

----------


## Devil505

> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. We're talking about mechanics, logistics.
> 
> First, who told you amendment is "impossible"? Betcha it's the *politicians* who said that, right? And that's only because they're completely full of it, they have brown stuff where their gray matter should be. Amendment is not impossible - but it does require the agreement of 2/3 of the politicians.
> 
> Now I ask you - the War Powers resolution had a 2/3 agreement, the AUMF had a 2/3 agreement, even the entirely un-Constitution Patriot Act had a 2/3 agreement - *so which shit-for-brains fool is telling us that 2/3 agreements are impossible? ???*
> 
> You're absolutely right Devil, participation is the key, and "impossible" is tantamount to encouraging non-participation.
> 
> You just *do* it, that's all. The simple truth is We the People have been doing a very poor job of defining our representation.


2/3rds of the Senate is a lot easier to get than 2/3rds
of the state's bicameral legislatures to agree on an amendment and then *3/4ths of all states must ratify it.
*http://www.lexisnexis.com/constituti...howitsdone.asp

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> 2/3rds of the Senate is a lot easier to get than 2/3rds
> of the state's bicameral legislatures to agree on an amendment and then *3/4ths of all states must ratify it.
> *http://www.lexisnexis.com/constituti...howitsdone.asp



Agreed, but just like the Lefties who think banning guns, high capacity magazines and/or "assault weapons" will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles, the Righties who think a Constitutional Convention will solve the major issues facing our nation are not thinking realistically.

----------


## Devil505

> Agreed, but just like the Lefties who think banning guns, high capacity magazines and/or "assault weapons" will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles, the Righties who think a Constitutional Convention will solve the major issues facing our nation are not thinking realistically.


I know no Lefties who believe that banning high capacity magazines will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles but I do no plenty of citizens that understand it would save lives and that's good enough for us.

----------


## nonsqtr

> 2/3rds of the Senate is a lot easier to get than 2/3rds
> of the state's bicameral legislatures to agree on an amendment and then *3/4ths of all states must ratify it.
> *http://www.lexisnexis.com/constituti...howitsdone.asp


Right. The deal with amendments is they're supposed to be "very good ideas". *So* good in fact, that an "overwhelming majority" (2/3, 3/4, whatever the case may be) of the People of all political persuasions have to agree with it.

So for example, in your earlier example you mentioned the Air Force. I think that one would sail through, don't you? Republicans and Democrats alike agree: an Air Force is probably a good idea, and we're willing to pay for it. Presto, done. Like magic! See? That wasn't hard, was it?

Obviously there are hard examples. Social welfare, for instance. The vote on that one is going to depend on how hard times are. If we're in a potato famine or a Great Depression we might 3/4 of the people assenting to it, but if we're in an economic boom maybe not. It's a big deal though, it ought to be carefully considered. You know, like Social Security - the whole idea of leaving a loophole where the elected louts can "borrow" and even "pilfer" from the fund - that's the kind of thing that happens when there's not enough time to consider the implementation.

ACA - same thing. War Powers - same thing. The impatience gets us in trouble!

----------

Sled Dog (10-27-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> *I know no Lefties who believe that banning high capacity magazines will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles* but I do no plenty of citizens that understand it would save lives and that's good enough for us.


Most of them believe it will.  Just because they aren't honest enough to admit it isn't my problem.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I know no Lefties who believe that banning high capacity magazines will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles but I do no plenty of citizens that understand it would save lives and that's good enough for us.


See? Liberals have bleeding hearts, and they allow that to cloud their political judgement.

"It would save lives" is not a good enough reason to jettison the Constitution! !!!

If you have an autocratic dictator running the show, that might "save lives" too (depending on who it was and how it was done) - you're okay with that?

Conservatives are not at all okay with that. We don't like autocratic dictators, and we don't like arrogant and impatient politicians who ramrod legislation by violating procedure. 

The level of disrespect being shown to our Constitution and our entire political system, in the "violation of procedure to achieve political ends", is more than noticeable. It's downright offensive, in most cases.

----------


## Devil505

> "It would save lives" is not a good enough reason to jettison the Constitution!


Agreed but it is a good enough reason  to reban hi cap magazines like they were from 1994-2004.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> We are a nation of laws and we have legal ways to change laws that we don't like.
> Disobeying laws is your choice but don't cry when you have to pay penalties if you break them.


Excuse me if I don't get my moral compass from the scribblings of the winners of popularity contests, nor do I consider it legitimate. Following the rules means avoiding the penalties, until, at least, the rules require immoral acts. What would you do if you were required, by law, to harm someone you know to be innocent? Probably go with "the law." Then, at least, you wouldn't have to feel bad about it.

----------


## squidward

> Agreed but it is a good enough reason to reban hi cap magazines like they were from 1994-2004.


khmer.jpgstalin gun freak.jpg

look at all the lives saved with minimal capacity magazines.

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## Hansel

A student at the school where an Indian boy shot his girl friend dead has also died, so the news this morning states. No offense meant against the Indians, just used that to define which shooting I was referring too.

----------


## Hansel

> khmer.jpgstalin gun freak.jpg
> 
> look at all the lives saved with minimal capacity magazines.


There have been some major losses in incidents where hi cap mags were used.  Seems like a McDonalds incident several years ago by a fruitcake was one of them.

A firearm in the hands of a well balanced and responsible adult is not the problem. No it is when mixed up kids or sicko adults spray down on little ones that causes
a problem.  The idea of gun control is to limit the number of weapons in circulation in  hopes it will reduce losses due to fruitcakes flipping out.  It is not a panacea and
no one can really expect it to be, but we need to start somewhere.

There are many high powered weapons that have not been available to the general public for decades now, and for good reason.  Things such as hand grenades,
flame throwers, and other military grade armament are just too lethal for popular use. Hey folks, there are idiots that fish by throwing explosives into a body of water,
and a hand grenade would come in real handy for this sport.  W can live without this luxury.


If the time should ever come, God forbid, then the people will find a way or ways to counter a despotic government. We have seen this in places like Poland and in other Euro countries so let's relax and not lose sleep over having to do battle with the feds. To me that is just fear rmongering on the part of gun addicts.

----------


## Hansel

> The best argument I've heard from Devil and Graham is that the law is "authority" and there are consequences for disobeying it.
> 
> My position is that human nature is a higher authority than any law written by man, and there are very serious consequences for being arrogant enough to try to play God and change it.
> 
> If it comes down to a choice between human nature and the law, I'll place my faith in human nature every time. The law is whimsical, fallible, and at the present moment, corrupt. Why should I place faith in a corrupt institution? That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?
> 
> On the other hand, human nature hasn't changed for the last ten thousand years of recorded history, and it won't change for the next ten thousand either. It's been well studied and well documented, and people in cultures of all kinds (from halfway around the globe who've never interacted) generally agree on what kinds of alignment need to take place in terms of political rights and human nature.
> 
> The issue is not whether SCOTUS has the power to make decisions - the issue is whether anyone cares. The issue is whether anyone cares a ) that they're making bad decisions, and b ) that they're making any decisions at all. New York City still has a jaywalking law on the books. Prior to 1991 they hadn't written a jaywalking ticket in 87 years. That's because no one cares about that stupid idiotic law - the pedestrians certainly don't care (because they're the ones jaywalking), and the cops don't care (because they're the ones "not" writing the tickets), and the city doesn't care ('cause they're not pressuring the cops to write more jaywalking tickets), so like, why is that law still on the books? How about an automatic sunset clause of... say.... 20 years for every single law? That's 5 presidential elections, that oughta be more than enough.


"On the other hand, human nature hasn't changed for the last ten thousand years of recorded history, and it won't change for the next ten thousand either. It's been well studied and well documented, and people in cultures of all kinds (from halfway around the globe who've never interacted) generally agree on what kinds of alignment need to take place in terms of political rights and human nature."

Are you trying to imply that human nature is not whimsical and fallible?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> OK my friend...so who/what has the power to decide that they haven't decided within the Constitution or made law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...so who/what has the power to decide that they haven't decided within the Constitution or made law?
> What is the legal mechanism to reverse their decision? (beyond amendment, which is practically impossible to do in this day and age.....there is no way to reverse their decisions so what they say is the law for all practical purposes)


The 2nd Amendment

----------


## Graham Garner

This is my take on the law and human nature:
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post421709

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Suppose I walk into a McDonald's with a seven shot semi automatic and a pocket full of loaded clips.  No one in the store has a weapon.  How many less people can I kill when if I walked into the same McDonald's with a "hi capacity" "assault weapon"

----------


## Graham Garner

The difference is that you would have to reload; which, in the panic of the moment, can be tricky.  When I hunted the most dangerous game ("Black Death"), I used a Rigby .470 "Nitro Express" double rifle and had two additional cartridges notched between my fingers which were often needed to take down a charging Cape Buffalo.  I also had a professional hunter as backup, for it is only a second between the quick and the dead.

----------


## Devil505

> Suppose I walk into a McDonald's with a seven shot semi automatic and a pocket full of loaded clips.  No one in the store has a weapon.  How many less people can I kill when if I walked into the same McDonald's with a "hi capacity" "assault weapon"


BS. 
Common sense tells you that when a shooter has to stop to reload presents an opportunity to stop him.

*Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount ...*
thinkprogress.org/.../seattle-school-*shooter*-was-thwarted-b...
ThinkProgress
Jun 6, 2014 - But one fact that is being widely reported is that the *shooter* was prevented from ... *While* he wasn't *stopped during reloading*, six children were ...


*Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia, the free ...*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_massacre
He killed six and wounded nineteen before being *stopped* by three of the .... The LIRR unit in which the *shootings* happened were cars #9891 and #9892, a pair of standard ... *While reloading* his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!You visited this page.



*Heroes of Tucson Shooting: 'Something Had to Be Done'*
abcnews.go.com  US
ABC News
Jan 10, 2011 - Woman *Stopped* Tucson *Shooter* From *Reloading* ... third in line to meet with Giffords, sat on the *gunman while* Maisch held his ankles down.You visited this page.



*Gun's magazine shaped the pace of Colorado theater ...*
articles.latimes.com/.../la-na-nn-theater-shooting-magazine-20120722
Jul 22, 2012 - But some would say the *shooter* had help - in the form of the. ... And *while* investigators are still busy piecing together why they believe ... the carnage didn't *stop* until he ran out of bullets and had to *reload*, at which point two ...

----------

Graham Garner (10-27-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The difference is that you would have to reload; which, in the panic of the moment, can be tricky.....





> BS. 
> Common sense tells you that when a shooter has to stop to reload presents an opportunity to stop him....


Which is the typical Lefty anti-gun response.  Translation:  _We don't care about mental illness, suicidally depressed people and couples who have violent domestic fights.  We just want to slow down all the shooting._

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),nonsqtr (10-27-2014),Victory (10-27-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Which is the typical Lefty anti-gun response.  Translation:  _We don't care about mental illness, suicidally depressed people and couples who have violent domestic fights.  We just want to slow down all the shooting._


Wrong.
It's the Lefties in Congress that are willing to pay for help for the mentally ill.
It's the GOP that only can find money for bombs.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Wrong.
> It's the Lefties in Congress that are willing to pay for help for the mentally ill.
> It's the GOP that only can find money for bombs.


Then is the focus on guns and not building more mental health facilities and supporting mental health programs? 

If you cure the disease, meaning people committing violent acts, then it won't matter if every American has a machine gun in their home, will it?

----------


## Devil505

> Then is the focus on guns and not building more mental health facilities and supporting mental health programs? 
> 
> If you cure the disease, meaning people committing violent acts, then it won't matter if every American has a machine gun in their home, will it?


*The GOP is against both*....funding to help the mentally ill and sensible gun control legislation.
They are in the back pockets of corporate America and the NRA.

----------


## Graham Garner

Max:  

I am not a liberal.  I am a very traditional conservative.  I am also the biggest gun owner here.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-27-2014)

----------


## liberal_hack

> Suppose I walk into a McDonald's with a seven shot semi automatic and a pocket full of loaded clips.  No one in the store has a weapon.  How many less people can I kill when if I walked into the same McDonald's with a "hi capacity" "assault weapon"


I fully support gun rights. The argument that a gun is what kills people is hogwash.

In the scenario above , you really need to think of the objective. Is it to simply shoot the gun or to kill people

Quick question: has anyone really paid attention to which direction most doors swing in places of public accommodation? You pull them open to enter and push to get out. To prevent exit, a quick wrap of a chain or rope and I mean QUICK can trap people until they can find something to break a window (if they think of that)

A couple of molotov cocktails could kill as many and just rope/chain the door as you run out.

a handgun could then quickly be used to not only drop the attacker but to shoot out a window.

As we saw in England with the soldier and woman in her back yard, if people want to kill someone(s), they will find a way

But, to deny the right of a free people to defend themselves is crazy.

----------

nonsqtr (10-27-2014),Victory (10-27-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Max:  
> 
> I am not a liberal.  I am a very traditional conservative.  I am also the biggest gun owner here.


I am a retired fed who carried a gun all his adult life.

It's just easier for some Righties to pretend that the only people who support sensible gun legislation are anti-gun leftie wimps when in actuality most gun owners support many common-sense gun laws.

----------


## Graham Garner

Devil505:
I don’t think that guns empower people. I have led men in combat, but never felt the need to carry a gun. On my second tour in Vietnam, General James Hollingsworth ("Danger 79er") - who, like General Patton, sported ivory-handled pistols - once chided me for not carrying a weapon; to which I responded that to do so would show a lack of confidence in myself and in my men.  He never broached the subject again.

----------


## Devil505

> Devil505:
> I dont think that guns empower people.


I don't really understand what the OP meant by "empower" anyway?






> I have led men in combat, but never felt the need to carry a gun. On my second tour in Vietnam, General James Hollingsworth ("Danger 79er") - who, like General Patton, sported ivory-handled pistols - once chided me for not carrying a weapon; to which I responded that to do so would show a lack of confidence in myself and in my men.  He never broached the subject again.


To each his own but I think carrying a gun in combat or when arresting bad guys and terrorists is simply the sensible thing to do. (actually required of federal enforcement agents)

----------


## Graham Garner

This is what I carried in Vietnam:

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> This is what I carried in Vietnam:



This is what I carried in Vietnam.  I felt very empowered.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, Dr. Felix Birdbiter: It's not about feeling "empowered" - it's about having "confidence" in yourself.  No gun can give you that - it has to come from yourself.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Agreed but it is a good enough reason  to reban hi cap magazines like they were from 1994-2004.


funny thing,,the high cap mags banned from 94-04 are the same ones i still have now...and will have in the future even if other useless bans are enacted..stops nothing...bans are useless unless the govt. can convince people to* voluntarily* turn in their banned items..and that didnt happen before {94-04} and wont happen in the future...

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No, Dr. Felix Birdbiter: It's not about feeling "empowered" - it's about having "confidence" in yourself.  No gun can give you that - it has to come from yourself.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

It came from within that I could blow the living shit out of anything that got in my way.  I was in the control seat of the Gunfire Control Director when at General Quarters.

----------


## Graham Garner

I called in B-52 Bomb Strikes.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I called in B-52 Bomb Strikes.



Well good for you.  Although to be honest given an earlier post of yours I find that claim to be somewhat circumspect.

----------


## Devil505

> funny thing,,the high cap mags banned from 94-04 are the same ones i still have now...and will have in the future even if other useless bans are enacted..stops nothing...bans are useless unless the govt. can convince people to* voluntarily* turn in their banned items..and that didnt happen before {94-04} and wont happen in the future...


The ban was on the sale of new hi cap mags only. (I think the Colorado shooter had a new 100 round drum mag that he wouldn't have been able to buy between 1994-2004)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Are you trying to imply that human nature is not whimsical and fallible?


I'm stating it directly.

Human beings are whimsical and fallible.

Human nature is not.

Human nature is cast in stone. To change human nature you'd actually have to change our DNA and rewire the brain.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The difference is that you would have to reload; which, in the panic of the moment, can be tricky.  When I hunted the most dangerous game ("Black Death"), I used a Rigby .470 "Nitro Express" double rifle and had two additional cartridges notched between my fingers which were often needed to take down a charging Cape Buffalo.  I also had a professional hunter as backup, for it is only a second between the quick and the dead.


All right, let me get this straight.

We (as a society) are going to inhibit people from protecting themselves - [u]encumber/u] their ability to reload in a life-threatening situation, all because a few jackasses with loose marbles can cause a problem from time to time.

You realize what you're saying here, right Graham?

See, this is exactly why we have a Second Amendment, so the bleeding hearts can't take over the universe and inhibit people from protecting themselves just 'cause of a few loose-marble jackasses.

*My rights shall not be compromised because you can't handle an imaginary worst-case scenario.*

The true facts in all these various shootings are that *anti-depressants* seem to have a whole lot more to do with the equation than the number, type, or capacity of the weapons.

Let's get real.

Stop your whining.

There won't be any restrictions on anyone's firearms. Give it up, it ain't never gonna happen. Not as long as there are sane people left in this country.

On the other hand, if you want to stop the random violence *look at the anti-depressants*.

Stop blaming the guns for someone's medical problem.

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),Victory (10-27-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> BS. 
> Common sense tells you that when a shooter has to stop to reload presents an opportunity to stop him.
> 
> *Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount ...*
> thinkprogress.org/.../seattle-school-*shooter*-was-thwarted-b...
> ThinkProgress
> Jun 6, 2014 - But one fact that is being widely reported is that the *shooter* was prevented from ... *While* he wasn't *stopped during reloading*, six children were ...
> 
> 
> ...


*Anti-depressants.*

Every single one of 'em.

*Every one*.

Columbine, Gabby Giffords, Washington, Sandy Hook.....

Fucking *anti-depressants*, 'kay?

(I mean, they tell you right there in the ad - "if you have suicidal feelings or thoughts, see your doctor").

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Sled Dog (10-27-2014),Victory (10-27-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> *Anti-depressants.*
> 
> Every single one of 'em.
> 
> *Every one*.
> 
> Columbine, Gabby Giffords, Washington, Sandy Hook.....
> 
> Fucking *anti-depressants*, 'kay?
> ...


How does one kill a bunch of people with a bottle of anti-depressants? (seems to be something missing in your scenario)

----------


## nonsqtr

You don't gotta "kill" anything, it happens all by itself.

----------


## Graham Garner

I think that people are more "empowered" today with cell phones than with guns.

----------

nonsqtr (10-27-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I think that people are more "empowered" today with cell phones than with guns.


Agreed! Words are more powerful than bullets. That's why our government is trying to mess with the words now, too. On top of the bullets, they're messing with the words.

----------

Graham Garner (10-27-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> *The GOP is against both*....funding to help the mentally ill and sensible gun control legislation.
> They are in the back pockets of corporate America and the NRA.


The old "It's all the GOP's fault" doesn't work with me.  Liberals got Obamacare passed.  If you really gave a shit about mental health, you'd get that passed too.  Instead you and your fellow anti-gunners spent 6 months trying, and failing, to pass another anti-gun bill which wouldn't have solved the problem of suicide, mental health issues, gang-violence and domestic violence.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The old "It's all the GOP's fault" doesn't work with me.  Liberals got Obamacare passed.  If you really gave a shit about mental health, you'd get that passed too.  Instead you and your fellow anti-gunners spent 6 months trying, and failing, to pass another anti-gun bill which wouldn't have solved the problem of suicide, mental health issues, gang-violence and domestic violence.


Well, the interesting thing is that Reagan may have been the one who nixed mental health funding, but if you look at all the Dem administrations since then, the funding hasn't been restored. Obviously it's a low priority for the Democrats too, as well as the Republicans.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well, the interesting thing is that Reagan may have been the one who nixed mental health funding, but if you look at all the Dem administrations since then, the funding hasn't been restored. Obviously it's a low priority for the Democrats too, as well as the Republicans.


Agreed.  It's an obsession with the Left to restrict, if not ban, guns.  They don't really give a shit about mental health or actually fixing the problems where people have used guns to harm others.

----------


## Victory

> BS. 
> Common sense tells you that when a shooter has to stop to reload presents an opportunity to stop him.
> 
> *Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount ...*
> thinkprogress.org/.../seattle-school-*shooter*-was-thwarted-b...
> ThinkProgress
> Jun 6, 2014 - But one fact that is being widely reported is that the *shooter* was prevented from ... *While* he wasn't *stopped during reloading*, six children were ...
> 
> 
> ...


So. . .why would you deny good citizens the same rights that the guilty attackers enjoy?

Why should good guys be restricted to effectively bring a knife to a gun fight?

You're still not making any sense.

----------


## Victory

> Max:  
> 
> I am not a liberal.  I am a very traditional conservative.  I am also the biggest gun owner here.


Ain't no way in hell you're a conservative.  You are the biggest kind of Progressive here.  If you call yourself a "conservative," you're a George Bush/Karl Rove kind of conservative.  Which is not conservative.

You are a Progressive.  Everything you've written about with respect to legal matters drips with Progressivism.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-27-2014),Green Man (10-28-2014),Invayne (10-27-2014),Sled Dog (10-27-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I called in B-52 Bomb Strikes.


Were they armed?

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I think that people are more "empowered" today with cell phones than with guns.


Are people enslaved today with cell phones?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Ain't no way in hell you're a conservative.  You are the biggest kind of Progressive here.  If you call yourself a "conservative," you're a George Bush/Karl Rove kind of conservative.  Which is not conservative.
> 
> You are a Progressive.  Everything you've written about with respect to legal matters drips with Progressivism.


Hm. I was thinking maybe Graham was trending more towards monarchy. But I should shut up and let him explain himself if he'd like to.  :Smile:

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I think that people are more "empowered" today with cell phones than with guns.



I suppose you could take a selfie with a shooter and he would stop long enough for you to get away but personally, I wouldn't count on it.

Professional hunter LOL LOL LOL

Charging Cape Buffalo
Guffaw   Guffaw

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Were they armed?



Weren't the 52's a rock group from the 90's?  Didn't they go on strike??  There you go, it was all Graham's fault.

----------


## Invayne

> Were they armed?


No, they had too much "confidence".  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-27-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The old "It's all the GOP's fault" doesn't work with me.  Liberals got Obamacare passed.  If you really gave a shit about mental health, you'd get that passed too.  Instead you and your fellow anti-gunners spent 6 months trying, and failing, to pass another anti-gun bill which wouldn't have solved the problem of suicide, mental health issues, gang-violence and domestic violence.



Reagan may have closed the mental institutions but only because the Democrats made it almost impossible to get anyone in them as patients.  It required such a legal hassle to get someone committed fewer and fewer people were ending up in the facilities and more and more living "homeless" on the street.  Reagan reasoned that if the facilities were not being utilized why keep them open.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-27-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> So. . .why would you deny good citizens the same rights that the guilty attackers enjoy?
> 
> Why should good guys be restricted to effectively bring a knife to a gun fight?
> 
> You're still not making any sense.


The argument that civilians are virtually unarmed/defenseless without military weapons is absurd hysteria.

----------


## Victory

> No, they had too much "confidence".


That's all you need, right?

Bombs don't empower a B-52.  The confidence of the crew empowers it.

If only we'd known that before we fought all those needless wars!  :Geez:

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-27-2014),Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The argument that civilians are virtually unarmed/defenseless without military weapons is absurd hysteria.


Excuse me, but what kind of a weapon is "not" a military weapon?

----------


## Devil505

> Excuse me, but what kind of a weapon is "not" a military weapon?


I would define them as anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act ...  plus high capacity feeding devices.

----------


## Victory

> Weren't the 52's a rock group from the 90's?  Didn't they go on strike??  There you go, it was all Graham's fault.


I'm not sure why he's fiddling around with goofy new wave bands instead of just doing his job.  He seems to enjoy taking simple tasks and making them all complicated.




He may also have confused this song "Roam" with the B-52's (the airplane not the band) long range capabilities.  He probably sat in on a weapons briefing, heard about the BUFF's ability to "roam" from Barksdale to South East Asia with a minimum of air to air refuelings and thought, "Oh.  I know that song."

----------


## Rutabaga

> The ban was on the sale of new hi cap mags only. (I think the Colorado shooter had a new 100 round drum mag that *he wouldn't have been able to buy between 1994-2004)*


*

*the ban was on *new manufactured mags*...not the millions in stock already...just like the band on folding stocks, flash suppressors, bayonets, etc. it had zero effect.except to increase the sale of the items...

----------


## Devil505

> [/B]the ban was on *new manufactured mags*...not the millions in stock already...just like the band on folding stocks, flash suppressors, bayonets, etc. it had zero effect.except to increase the sale of the items...


I believe it was illegal for gun stores to sell new or used hi cap mags from 1994-2004.

----------


## Victory

> I believe it was illegal for gun stores to sell new or used hi cap mags from 1994-2004.


And how effective was that?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I believe it was illegal for gun stores to sell new or used hi cap mags from 1994-2004.


They were freely available used.

----------


## Devil505

> And how effective was that?


Prove it wasn't effective.

----------


## Victory

> Prove it wasn't effective.


Why?  Because you can't prove your own point you made?  Color me shocked.




> They were freely available used.

----------


## Victory

> I would define them as anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act ...  plus high capacity feeding devices.


A Colt 1911 is a military weapon.  You are speaking mush again.

If you mean to say, "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act" then SAY "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act."

Your sloppiness is at best annoying in a political forum and at worst resulting in dangerously bad legislation.  Clean up your act!

----------


## Hansel

> A Colt 1911 is a military weapon.  You are speaking mush again.
> 
> If you mean to say, "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act" then SAY "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act."
> 
> Your sloppiness is at best annoying in a political forum and at worst resulting in dangerously bad legislation.  Clean up your act!


It is a military weapon but there are equivalent civilian models. I have heard the Colt .45 is not a very accurate weapon and it bucks like hell.

----------


## Devil505

> They were freely available used.


But you couldn't buy them from gun dealers/sport shops, right? (I think it was even illegal to sell them privately)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I believe it was illegal for gun stores to sell new or used hi cap mags from 1994-2004.


not so.

----------


## Victory

> Actually I've posted stats that show it did between 1994-2004.
> What the hell does a civilian need a 100 round drum magazine for?


For the thousanth time:  For the LA riots.  Not that you get to decide what I need.

Stop thinking you've got a lock on every damn contingency.  You're not the smartest man in the room.  In the room of "What I need" there is only one man, "I" and I'm the smartest man in that room.

----------


## Devil505

> A Colt 1911 is a military weapon.  You are speaking mush again.
> 
> If you mean to say, "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act" then SAY "anything not strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act."
> 
> Your sloppiness is at best annoying in a political forum and at worst resulting in dangerously bad legislation.  Clean up your act!


Trolls like you aren't here to argue issues you're here for the drama.
Go spit spitballs at someone else...you're boring.

----------


## Devil505

> not so.


Have a link?

----------


## Rutabaga

> But you couldn't buy them from gun dealers/sport shops, right? (I think it was even illegal to sell them privately)


again, you are mistaken.

it was illegal to import new banned items..illegal to sell banned items manufactured *after* the ban..it did not include already on the shelf items, nor items manufactured *prior* to the ban...

you know this...its simple to verify..why do you pretend not to?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Have a link?


how many do you need?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ns-in-one-post

from the link:*What did the 1994 ban actually do?* For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.
 There was, however, an important exception. *Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands*.

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> how many do you need?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ns-in-one-post
> 
> from the link:*What did the 1994 ban actually do?* For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.
>  There was, however, an important exception. *Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands*.


These items need to be systematically bought and destroyed by concerned citizens. If the government cannot or will not help us then the people need to do it themselves.
What I have in mind is something like the old cash for clunkers operations.  Every little bit helps.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> again, you are mistaken.
> 
> it was illegal to import new banned items..illegal to sell banned items manufactured *after* the ban..it did not include already on the shelf items, nor items manufactured *prior* to the ban...
> 
> *you know this...its simple to verify..why do you pretend not to?*


Because the "New Liberalism" is like George Orwell's "1984"; it has a heavy emphasis on revising history to fit current views.

BTW, you are correct.  It's easy to verify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_of_the_ban



> During the ban, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the definition of a _semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device except for export or sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items._


http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf

All Liberal anti-gun bans do is drive up the price for guns and their accessories plus create record profits for gun manufacturers.  The best thing that ever happened to S&W, Ruger, Colt and multiple gun makers is President Barack Obama.  I'd be surprised if they don't kick some money into the DNC election kitty with a "Thank You" note.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambro...-firearm-fear/



> Gun sales reached at least a 14-year high last month, according to a widely used, if imperfect, measure.
> The FBI processed 2.78 million background checks through its national database (NICS), meaning last month was the busiest month ever for gun-sellers since NICS began in 1998. For contrast,  authorities in Dec. 2007 processed 1.23 million checks, and five years before that, in 2002, only 974,000 checks.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-on-issue.html
_U.S. gun makers led by Sturm Ruger & Co. andSmith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC)churned out a record number of firearms in 2012, government data show, continuing a trend of robust production during Democratic presidencies._
_More than 8.57 million guns were produced in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been tracking the statistics since 1986._
_Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show._
_Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate said manufacturers were meeting demand fueled by concerns among gun owners that Democratic presidents are more willing to limit firearms sales than Republicans. After years of steering clear of the issue, Obama pressed unsuccessfully last year for stricter gun measures in the wake of the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut._
_The production boom has resulted in strong sales and profits for gun companies, including Sturm & Ruger and Smith & Wesson._
_“Barack Obama is the stimulus package for the firearms industry,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Mag, a print and online publication of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, a gun-ownership rights group. “The greatest irony of the Obama administration is that the one industry that he may not have really liked to see healthy has become the healthiest industry in the United States.”_

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),Rutabaga (10-27-2014)

----------


## squidward

> If the time should ever come, God forbid, then the people will find a way or ways to counter a despotic government. We have seen this in places like Poland and in other Euro countries so let's relax and not lose sleep over having to do battle with the feds. To me that is just fear rmongering on the part of gun addicts.


yeah, it hasn't happened multiple times this century. Millions haven't died.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## squidward

> It's just easier for some Righties to pretend that the only people who support sensible gun legislation are anti-gun leftie wimps


you are an anti-gun, big government authoritarian.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## squidward

> The argument that civilians are *virtually unarmed/defenseless without military weapons* is absurd hysteria.


hyperbole much ?

----------


## Rutabaga

> These items need to be systematically bought and destroyed by concerned citizens. If the government cannot or will not help us then the people need to do it themselves.
> What I have in mind is something like the old cash for clunkers operations.  Every little bit helps.


if you have some for sale, i would be interested..

pm me for a place and time..

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Because the "New Liberalism" is like George Orwell's "1984"; it has a heavy emphasis on revising history to fit current views.
> 
> BTW, you are correct.  It's easy to verify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ons_of_the_ban
> 
> 
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf
> 
> All Liberal anti-gun bans do is drive up the price for guns and their accessories plus create record profits for gun manufacturers.  The best thing that ever happened to S&W, Ruger, Colt and multiple gun makers is President Barack Obama.  I'd be surprised if they don't kick some money into the DNC election kitty with a "Thank You" note.
> 
> ...



these idiots who pushed for bans are the greatest boon to the firearms industry ever seen...not to mention the NRA...

stupid is as stupid does...

----------

Invayne (10-27-2014),Max Rockatansky (10-27-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Prove it wasn't effective.


the question should be how effective it was...

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-27-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> These items need to be systematically bought and destroyed by concerned citizens. If the government cannot or will not help us then the people need to do it themselves.
> What I have in mind is something like the old cash for clunkers operations.  Every little bit helps.



Got a link that civilians bought them just to destroy them?

----------


## Sled Dog

> These items need to be systematically bought and destroyed by concerned citizens. If the government cannot or will not help us then the people need to do it themselves.
> What I have in mind is something like the old cash for clunkers operations. Every little bit helps.


So you're saying that the Rodents should emulate the unconstitutional failed program by King Ebola that took valuable assets off the street, thereby making it much more difficult for poor people to buy transportation, in the hopes that ...what?  That people will grow PROGRESSIVELY dumber and fall for it again?

----------


## Sled Dog

> 2/3rds of the Senate is a lot easier to get than 2/3rds
> of the state's bicameral legislatures to agree on an amendment and then *3/4ths of all states must ratify it.
> *http://www.lexisnexis.com/constituti...howitsdone.asp



True, it's why you Rodents have packed the already corrupt courts with totally corrupt poseurs pretending to be judges, knowing full well that those communists will vote politically rather than base their corrupt decisions on the Constitution.

And then you prattle endlessly about how the Courts can't be refuted.

There's one way, and ONLY ONE WAY, to alter both the wording AND MEANING of the Constitution.  It's not a "living document", it can only be changed by the Ratification process.

Who ratified the murder of unborn babies?

Who ratified the prohibition of drugs?

Who ratified the Department of Education?

Who ratified the EPA?

Nobody, nobody, nobody, and NOBODY.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Invayne (10-27-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I know no Lefties who believe that banning high capacity magazines will cure gang violence, suicide and domestic squabbles but I do no plenty of citizens that understand it would save lives and that's good enough for us.


Oh, then you agree that the ONLY reason your Rodent masters promote it's gun grabbing agenda is the enslavement of the citizen.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I believe it was illegal for gun stores to sell new or used hi cap mags from 1994-2004.


you would be wrong again...i bought and sold them.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Got a link that civilians bought them just to destroy them?


What, the Cash for Clunkers scam?

The car dealers were obliged to run the engines at high speed and pour acid into the carburetors, or otherwise render the motor permanently ruined.

Then the car dealer would take the car the government paid them to buy (a freebie) and render the vehicle for it's thousands of dollars in spare parts.

But of course the price of good used cars climbed.   I kept my 12 g/mile 1-ton GMC Cargo van through that nonsense, and used it to total an old plastic bumpered Lexus some dimwit put in front of me.   When I got home I had to nibble a two inch peice off the front bumber of my van.  The dimwit was going to have to peel his entire trunk off his rear tire.

Lousy gas mileage, wonderful properties of momentum, stiffness and strength.   I kept that van for another year before I decided that it was finally too old to be worth keeping up.

THAT'S what real Americans do with their clunkers, they clunk idiots with them.   Never have figured out why that damn fool stopped in a panic just because the light turned yellow.  I made sure he entered the intersection just when the light turned red.

----------


## Sled Dog

> There have been some major losses in incidents where hi cap mags were used. Seems like a McDonalds incident several years ago by a fruitcake was one of them.


So?

Seems like an awful lot of lives are lost when a hi-cap school bus falls off a cliff.  Clearly we need to save children by banning hi-cap school buses.

And 1500 people lost their lives by sailing on the hi-cap Titanic.   We will save thousands be limiting ships crossing the Atlantic to only two passengers.




> A firearm in the hands of a well balanced and responsible adult is not the problem. No it is when mixed up kids or sicko adults spray down on little ones that causes a problem.


So you say punish the sane and lawful by denying them the chance to protect the children when the insane and unlawful get loose.

Do you say ban cars because drunks kill thousands every year....deaths that could be clearly avoided if only the police and fire departments were allowed to drive cars.

No you don't...so clearly your "saves lives" argument is a crock of steaming Rodent shit.

Come up with a real argument.

But you can't.

Because there isn't any justification for disarming the people that you can state openly, because your masters want the people disarmed only for nefarious reasons.   People promoting the industrialized slaughter of the unborn simply cannot credibly use the "saves lives" argument for ANY agenda driven policy item.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Suppose I walk into a McDonald's with a seven shot semi automatic and a pocket full of loaded clips. No one in the store has a weapon. How many less people can I kill when if I walked into the same McDonald's with a "hi capacity" "assault weapon"


The Long Island commuter train shooter had time to reload once. His victims were so stupid they let him finish. Five seconds is a damn long time, too.

The Virginia Tech morons that got themselves shot STOOD IN LINE, PEACEABLY, WAITING. Not one of those fools even tried to fight back...and the shooter had to reload then, too.

I will not grieve when useless lives are thrown away by those who refused to live them.  Their death may have been prevented...but they were the gutless liberal spawn of a gutless liberal society that bred the fight out of them.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> BS. 
> Common sense tells you that when a shooter has to stop to reload presents an opportunity to stop him.
> 
> *Seattle School Shooter Was Thwarted By A Limited Amount ...*
> thinkprogress.org/.../seattle-school-*shooter*-was-thwarted-b...
> ThinkProgress
> Jun 6, 2014 - But one fact that is being widely reported is that the *shooter* was prevented from ... *While* he wasn't *stopped during reloading*, six children were ...




In other words, your argument doesn't apply.

Why do you post arguments contrary to what you are trying to propagandize?

[quote]*Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia, the free ...*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_massacre
He killed six and wounded nineteen before being *stopped* by three of the .... The LIRR unit in which the *shootings* happened were cars #9891 and #9892, a pair of standard ... *While reloading* his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!You visited this page.[quote]

He SHOT TWENTY FIVE PEOPLE...which means HE RELOADED.

Took the damn stupids ages to figure that one out.




> *Heroes of Tucson Shooting: 'Something Had to Be Done'*
> abcnews.go.com  US
> ABC News
> Jan 10, 2011 - Woman *Stopped* Tucson *Shooter* From *Reloading* ... third in line to meet with Giffords, sat on the *gunman while* Maisch held his ankles down.You visited this page.




Uh-huh...too bad he wasn't a better shot.
*





Gun's magazine shaped the pace of Colorado theater ...


*


> articles.latimes.com/.../la-na-nn-theater-shooting-magazine-20120722
> Jul 22, 2012 - But some would say the *shooter* had help - in the form of the. ... And *while* investigators are still busy piecing together why they believe ... the carnage didn't *stop* until he ran out of bullets and had to *reload*, at which point two ...


Yeah, it's amazing that it took people so long to figure out.

It's because they're liberal, and thus slow.

And why did those gunpersons feel so confident that they'd get something done?

Clearly its' because they're confident, thanks to liberals like Gagme Giffords and your anti-gun policies, that their victim crowds will be unarmed, and thus defenseless.

Why do you want Americans to be defenseless, when there are things like Gagme Giffords running around trying everything they can to hurt them?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Wrong.
> It's the Lefties in Congress that are willing to pay for help for the mentally ill.
> It's the GOP that only can find money for bombs.


HINT TO THE UNIFORMED.  (That means you @Devil505). 

The Congress of the United States of America IS NOT AUTHORIZED to finance health matters of any sort, including lunatics.  That function is to be performed by the individual states at their convenience.

BOMBS...are part of the national defense and thus ARE a REQUIREMENT of the Congress.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),JustPassinThru (10-27-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> *The GOP is against both*....funding to help the mentally ill and sensible gun control legislation.
> They are in the back pockets of corporate America and the NRA.


Sensible gun control legislation.

The would be...the federal goverment financing militia programs in the states to improve marksmanship ratings and safety and handling training for people in the general miliitia.

Nothing else makes any sense at all, especially not your fascist programs of gun confiscation.

----------


## Sled Dog

> How does one kill a bunch of people with a bottle of anti-depressants? (seems to be something missing in your scenario)


How does a gun kill people?

Something definitely missing in your scenario.

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think that people are more "empowered" today with cell phones than with guns.


Yeah, those videos of people shooting really scare off the intruders and rapists.   A good shotgun never could do that.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Well, the interesting thing is that Reagan may have been the one who nixed mental health funding,


He wasn't.

In case you missed it, Reagan the Great never had the line item veto.  It was the RODENTS who controlled the House throughout his presidency and their refusal to fund the nuthouses was merely part of their tactic of keeping the crazies on the streets and in the public eye to use as a bogus club.  The Stupids bought it, of course.

And the reality is, of course, that the STATES, not the federal government, are responsible for all health matters needing government oversight in this country.  So in EVERY STATE where the Rodents held the legislature and the governorship, like say, New York, the RODENTS were to blame for any dead winos and crazies who froze in the winter.




> but if you look at all the Dem administrations since then, the funding hasn't been restored. Obviously it's a low priority for the Democrats too, as well as the Republicans.


Everyone knows Rodents are hypocrites.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Reagan may have closed the mental institutions but only because the Democrats made it almost impossible to get anyone in them as patients. It required such a legal hassle to get someone committed fewer and fewer people were ending up in the facilities and more and more living "homeless" on the street. Reagan reasoned that if the facilities were not being utilized why keep them open.


The Rodents kicked the loonies onto the streets thanks to That Idiot Carter's Busybody Wifey.

----------


## Sled Dog

> That's all you need, right?
> 
> Bombs don't empower a B-52. The confidence of the crew empowers it.
> 
> If only we'd known that before we fought all those needless wars!


Jet fuel empowers the B-52.

----------


## Sled Dog

> But you couldn't buy them from gun dealers/sport shops, right? (I think it was even illegal to sell them privately)


Yeah, you DEA agents know all about the effectiveness of telling people they can't sell something, don't you?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Sensible gun control legislation.
> 
> The would be...the federal goverment financing militia programs in the states to improve marksmanship ratings and safety and handling training for people in the general miliitia.
> 
> Nothing else makes any sense at all, especially not your fascist programs of gun confiscation.


Agreed. Education is better than confiscation.

----------


## Hansel

> How does a gun kill people?
> 
> Something definitely missing in your scenario.


Deja vu. I have heard that stale argument before.  A firearm has the advantage over other weapons such as knives and clubs in that it allows the operator to fire from a
distance and avoid being entangled with the victim's defenses such as his hands. It is relatively small and easily concealed, and is portable. And the larger mags gives the shooter staying power.
You will play hell trying to convince me that guns were not intended to maim and kill living creatures, and that includes people. The fly in your argument is that people
are fallible and that some flip out and do terrible damage to innocents.   If we were programmable robots then there would be far less casualty form guns but that is not the case.

----------


## Graham Garner

Dr. Felix Birdbiter:

Responding to your Post# 389, _supra_: You cannot hunt in Africa, even on privately owned property, unaccompanied.  As a nonresident, you cannot legally hunt unless you are directly under the supervision of a licensed professional hunter ("PH"). In addition your hunt has to be under the direct control and organizational capabilities of a licensed outfitter. Both PH and Outfitter have to be licensed in the province where the hunt will take place.  I made a number of African safaris with licensed outfitters, which were arranged through Audley House, London (Purdy), and the New York offices of Holland & Holland.

----------


## Green Man

> *The GOP is against both*....funding to help the mentally ill and sensible gun control legislation.


Neither are federal responsibilities. The states, when they established their compact, never delegated to congress the power to address either.

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014),Sled Dog (10-29-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Deja vu. I have heard that stale argument before.  A firearm has the advantage over other weapons such as knives and clubs in that it allows the operator to fire from a
> distance and avoid being entangled with the victim's defenses such as his hands. It is relatively small and easily concealed, and is portable. And the larger mags gives the shooter staying power.
> *You will play hell trying to convince me that guns were not intended to maim and kill living creatures, and that includes people*. The fly in your argument is that people
> are fallible and that some flip out and do terrible damage to innocents.   If we were programmable robots then there would be far less casualty form guns but that is not the case.


well gee!

i never thought guns were made to kill!

you have exposed a truth the rest of us never considered.

what a master of obvious recognition you are!


no shit.

----------


## Devil505

> Neither are federal responsibilities. The states, when they established their compact, never delegated to congress the power to address either.


Your "Opinion" on the subject is meaningless in law.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> What, the Cash for Clunkers scam?
> 
> The car dealers were obliged to run the engines at high speed and pour acid into the carburetors, or otherwise render the motor permanently ruined.
> 
> Then the car dealer would take the car the government paid them to buy (a freebie) and render the vehicle for it's thousands of dollars in spare parts.
> 
> But of course the price of good used cars climbed.   I kept my 12 g/mile 1-ton GMC Cargo van through that nonsense, and used it to total an old plastic bumpered Lexus some dimwit put in front of me.   When I got home I had to nibble a two inch peice off the front bumber of my van.  The dimwit was going to have to peel his entire trunk off his rear tire.
> 
> Lousy gas mileage, wonderful properties of momentum, stiffness and strength.   I kept that van for another year before I decided that it was finally too old to be worth keeping up.
> ...


No, I was referencing the claim that private citizens bought hi capacity magazines just to destroy them.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Your "Opinion" on the subject is meaningless in law.


Your thinking is the reason 6 million Jews were slaughtered in Germany, because it was the law and what could the German people do about it but follow the law?

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Your thinking is the reason 6 million Jews were slaughtered in Germany, because it was the law and what could the German people do about it but follow the law?


So what are you going to actually ...*Do*?  (J-walk to show you defiance of the law?)

----------


## old wood

> Of course not.
> 
> A 9-1-1 phone system, with cellular phones provided by taxpayers, with Federal Police officers ready and willing to help...THOSE empower people.
> 
> Seriously.  What is the difference between a peon and a freeman?
> 
> A peon begs his liege lord for meat once a month.
> 
> A freeman, dressed in silk or in rags, stands tall - and provides for himself.  Because he DROVE OFF the would-be earl/duke/count/liege lord/bond holder - WITH A WEAPON.  
> ...


911 connects us to LOCAL law..not Feds...is that unclear?   Our "aristocracy" now are not dukes and Earls..but tycoons, CEO's, Land barons.    Some maverick who uses a weapon to shoot a COP...in 2014.. not the middle ages.....is on shaky legal ground. Look at the guy on the run in Pennsylvania.  We  all get to have our gun fun...shooting at animals, shooting beer cans. When we try to be OUTLAWS.... TRAITORS.....the outcome is obvious.

What would be your stand if the armed "freemen"  shooting at the LAW...were Black Panthers?  Would you still be for them?

----------


## old wood

> well gee!
> 
> i never thought guns were made to kill!
> 
> you have exposed a truth the rest of us never considered.
> 
> what a master of obvious recognition you are!
> 
> 
> no shit.


 Of course guns are made to kill.   Cars kill.. but that's NOT the intent.   We have a real fetish, head in the sand politics about guns.  Is the urge to kill a sacred right?   A hammer is a tool with a purpose...so is a gun. There's no DENIAL about what a hammer is. Nobody acts like a Hammer is the basis of civilized life,of our religion or ethics.   It is a tool. So is a gun.  Neither makes your dick super large. Neither makes you more SUPERIOR. 

While I can kill with a car, a hammer....those tools are not designed to KILL. Guns are.    We need some degree of SANITY.   Don't let the crazy guy drive the bus.

----------

Hansel (10-28-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> So what are you going to actually ...*Do*?  (J-walk to show you defiance of the law?)


A little more than that, Devil.

I jaywalk every day, it's an everyday occurrence.

I smoke pot every day too (which is legal now, but it didn't use to be).

I have some pretty decent weapons, too.

But, generally speaking, I still stay well within the confines of the law. I don't "use" the power I have, unless and until I really need to use it.

And, at the end of the day, I wear a white hat, and I don't like black hats. And what I've learned is, black hats come in many forms, and they're all equally as dangerous.

IMO it is entirely possible at this point that some of our most menacing enemies are within. I can't make that determination yet, but there is definitely evidence that points in that direction.

And that would be a black hat - a mole, a traitor, a rat in our nest.

And in that case, we wouldn't be talking about jaywalking anymore.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> 911 connects us to LOCAL law..not Feds...is that unclear?


The _whooosh!!_ you heard was my sarcasm sailing over your head.

----------


## Victory

> Jet fuel empowers the B-52.


If by "jet fuel" you mean "a spirit of cohesion that can only come from Progressive policies, the law, and confidence" then yes, I would agree.

----------


## Victory

> It is a military weapon but there are equivalent civilian models. I have heard the Colt .45 is not a very accurate weapon and it bucks like hell.


The Colt .45's accuracy is just fine.  And a Defender .45 is entirely civilian and kicks a hell of a lot more.

----------


## Victory

> The argument that civilians are virtually unarmed/defenseless without military weapons is absurd hysteria.


Why would you deny civilians ANY weapons military or not?  Why are you so damn suspicious of people you've never met?

Do you instintively flinch and cower when somebody wants to shake your hand?  Why do you fear people so much?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Do you instintively flinch and cower when somebody wants to shake your hand?  Why do you fear people so much?


He used to be a fed, that's kind of like a cop, you end up seeing the seamy side of life every day, and maybe it leads you to believe that "everyone" is that way.

Maybe everyone is that way.... y'know?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It is a military weapon but there are equivalent civilian models. I have heard the Colt .45 is not a very accurate weapon and it bucks like hell.


You heard wrong.  Another reason why people who don't know anything about a subject shouldn't be voting on it.

Here is an example of comparing a 1911 to a Glock  http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/Glock_vs_1911.htm

----------

Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The argument that civilians are virtually unarmed/defenseless without military weapons is absurd hysteria.


When the Left defines every firearm as a "military weapon", then, yes, civilians would be unarmed.  Nerf guns and BB guns don't count.

----------


## nonsqtr

> When the Left defines every firearm as a "military weapon", then, yes, civilians would be unarmed.  Nerf guns and BB guns don't count.


Have you googled on "drone telemetry" yet?  :Wink:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Have you googled on "drone telemetry" yet?


Lots of it out there!

If it was up to the Liberals only the US government would have drones.

This 316 knot R/C jet is begging for a GoPro camera!

----------


## Devil505

> Why would you deny civilians ANY weapons military or not? Why are you so damn suspicious of people you've never met?


To protect society from fringe/whackos who think the way you do?
(I'm just a little leery of letting suicidal maniacs walk around with hand grenades and automatic weapons I guess.)

----------


## Rutabaga

> To protect society from fringe/whackos who think the way you do?
> (I'm just a little leery of letting suicidal maniacs walk around with hand grenades and automatic weapons I guess.)


but civilians have always been allowed to own hand grenades, machine guns, fully functioning tanks and ammo, bazooooookas, flame throwers, military aircraft and ammo, etc.  

you say you were a fed, but are ignorant of these facts?


google is your friend..educate yourself...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> To protect society from fringe/whackos who think the way you do?
> (I'm just a little leery of letting suicidal maniacs walk around with hand grenades and automatic weapons I guess.)


Then find a way to stop the suicidal maniacs and leave the law-biding citizens alone.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014),Rutabaga (10-28-2014),Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> To protect society from fringe/whackos who think the way you do?
> (I'm just a little leery of letting suicidal maniacs walk around with hand grenades and automatic weapons I guess.)


Well.... in most places, a suicidal tendency is considered a mental illness.

All those terrorists who blow themselves up, are mentally ill, they're loony tunes.

But like, we don't set up suicide prevention hotlines for them, do we? We don't have compassion for them, we don't think of them as mentally ill "first" and we don't consider that the violence may be nothing but a psychological symptom of mental illness.

On the other hand, depression is also a mental illness. So, if we're letting people on antidepressants walk around with weapons then isn't that exactly the same as having a terrorist in our midst?

----------


## Victory

> He used to be a fed, that's kind of like a cop, you end up seeing the seamy side of life every day, and maybe it leads you to believe that "everyone" is that way.
> 
> Maybe everyone is that way.... y'know?


Maybe it's good that he's retired.

----------


## Hansel

> Then find a way to stop the suicidal maniacs and leave the law-biding citizens alone.


At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.

Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.

----------

Devil505 (10-28-2014)

----------


## Victory

> To protect society from fringe/whackos who think the way you do?
> (I'm just a little leery of letting suicidal maniacs walk around with hand grenades and automatic weapons I guess.)


You've never progressed one inch beyond this mental back watter eddy.  You are perpetually stuck here like a bit of flotsam in a billabong.

Fringe whackos drive cars.  Wanna ban cars?

A fringe whacko outgunned by his sane neighbors is a self-correcting problem.

A finge whacko pays no attention to your laws.

We already have laws against whackos and maniacs owning guns.

Are you so old you've lost the ability to think of anything new?

----------


## Victory

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.


That's like saying, "I might hurl myself over the edge into the Grand Canyon."  I stopped thinking like that when I was, like, 7.  By all means, YOU should refrain from owning a weapon.  But leave the adults to tend to more mature matters.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> but civilians have always been allowed to own hand grenades, machine guns, fully functioning tanks and ammo, bazooooookas, flame throwers, military aircraft and ammo, etc.


Not without an extensive ATF/FBI background check and at least a six month wait for approval....if you are lucky.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.


By that logic, you should ban all automobiles because anyone of us might crack and suddenly decide to drive drunk.

Sorry, but there are better ways to help prevent violence than shredding the Constitution and suppressing the rights of law-biding citizens.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014),sotmfs (11-04-2014),Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## Victory

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.


You realize, of course, this makes you an absolute gun banner--not a partial gun banner, not somebody who is only against "high capacity magazines" or "scary military type weapons"--but a black and white, total and absolute gun banner.

A flipped out person will find that one weapon in an otherwise unarmed citizenry and use it.  If you don't agree then you need to modify your stance.  This is your own stance reflected back at you.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014),Max Rockatansky (10-28-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> Your "Opinion" on the subject is meaningless in law.


If the states did indeed write in their compact that they were delegating such powers, feel free to supply the relvant text.

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014),Sled Dog (10-29-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Not without an extensive ATF/FBI background check and at least a six month wait for approval....if you are lucky.


how does that negate my statement?

civilans have always been able to own military style weapons of war.

----------


## Devil505

> Maybe it's good that he's retired.


Damn......and I almost had the whole drug problem solved!  :Angry20:

----------


## Rutabaga

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> *Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie*.


shit happens,,everyday, by millions of ways..

you can hide under a rock if you are fearful, but that wont stop death from finding you.

----------

Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> how does that negate my statement?
> 
> civilans have always been able to own military style weapons of war.


The purpose of the NFA was to *limit,* not ban very dangerous weapons and it has been very successful at doing just that.
(do you know anyone with operable hand grenades?...I don't)
Have any of the mass murder nuts used grenades or fully automatic weapons?
How many more people would have been killed if any of them did have access to those type weapons?

----------


## Devil505

> shit happens,,everyday, by millions of ways..
> 
> you can hide under a rock if you are fearful, but that wont stop death from finding you.


What a childish/silly argument.

----------


## Devil505

> If the states did indeed write in their compact that they were delegating such powers, feel free to supply the relvant text.


http://www.usconstitution.net/ratifications.html

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What a childish/silly argument.


So is suggesting banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" will cure suicidal maniacs, gang violence and domestic squabbles.

----------

Sled Dog (10-29-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.


That's the same idiotic stupid argument they made about Prohibition.

What's responsible is for *you* to keep your hands off *my* weapons.

----------


## Devil505

> So is suggesting banning high capacity magazines ...


]It was the law from 1994-2004 when NRA pressure allowed it to sunset.





> ....and "assault rifles" will cure suicidal maniacs, gang violence and domestic squabbles.


No one claims it will cure those things but it would save lives and that's good enough.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The purpose of the NFA was to *limit,* not ban very dangerous weapons and it has been very successful at doing just that.
> (do you know anyone with operable hand grenades?...I don't)


Are you kidding? Half of Los Angeles has hand grenades. Just about all of the cartelistas do, most of the gangs, ... the delusion of somehow making a dent into this equation with "the law" persists beyond any reasonable reality.




> Have any of the mass murder nuts used grenades or fully automatic weapons?


Blackwater guards? That was mass murder, right?




> How many more people would have been killed if any of them did have access to those type weapons?


I'll leave that as an open question.  :Smile:

----------


## Rutabaga

> ]It was the law from 1994-2004 when NRA pressure allowed it to sunset.


havent we already covered this?

the ban only restricted sales of mags, guns, etc. manufactured after the date of the ban..it did nothing but increase those items on the streets...

wiggle, squirm all you want,,but thats the facts...

----------


## Rutabaga

> What a childish/silly argument.


from someone who has made numerous incorrect statements, i find your post oddly comforting...

----------


## Green Man

> http://www.usconstitution.net/ratifications.html


A hyperlink is not an argument. 

If you hold that the states did indeed write in their compact that they were delegating such powers, feel free to supply the relvant text.

----------


## Rutabaga

> The purpose of the NFA was to *limit,* not ban very dangerous weapons and it has been very successful at doing just that.
> (*do you know anyone with operable hand grenades?...I don't*)
> Have any of the mass murder nuts used grenades or fully automatic weapons?
> *How many more people would have been killed if any of them did have access to those type weapons*?


everyone has access...thats the point...pass the regulations, buy the item, own the item...

as to how many have been used?

thank you,,you have made my point very clear...

----------


## Victory

> What a childish/silly argument.


But Devil, why?

Why?

Why would you insult somebody like that?  Huh?

Why?

----------


## Victory

> ]It was the law from 1994-2004 when NRA pressure allowed it to sunset.
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims it will cure those things but it would save lives and that's good enough.


How many lives are you willing to lose so that guns are legal but high capacity magazines are illegal?

What's the max number you would allow before you start supporting all out gun banning measures?

----------


## Victory

> I am a retired fed who carried a gun all his adult life.
> 
> It's just easier for some Righties to pretend that the only people who support sensible gun legislation are anti-gun leftie wimps when in actuality most gun owners support many common-sense gun laws.


Are you saying the 2nd Amendment is not common sense?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> ]It was the law from 1994-2004 when NRA pressure allowed it to sunset.
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims it will cure those things but* it would save lives and that's good enough.*


Millions of Americans, including myself, supported letting that BS law expire.  Passage of that bill was one of the many reasons Americans voted a Republican majority into Congress and for a Republican President in 2000.

Shredding the Constitution to save a few lives isn't good enough.  Next you'll ban cars, matches and swimming pools for the same reasons.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's just easier for some Righties to pretend that the only people who support sensible gun legislation are anti-gun leftie wimps when in actuality most gun owners support many common-sense gun laws.


I support common-sense gun laws.  Your precious 1994 anti-gun act isn't one of them.  Neither is Obama's attempt to do the same.

Common-sense gun laws don't include banning guns from law-biding citizens or making the laws so burdensome, honest citizens can't afford or access guns, ammo or their accessories.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Victory

> This is what I carried in Vietnam.  I felt very empowered.


This is what I carried in Iraq.



Wish I had a gun.  I would have felt more empowered.

----------


## Devil505

> havent we already covered this?
> 
> the ban only restricted sales of mags, guns, etc. manufactured after the date of the ban..it did nothing but increase those items on the streets...
> 
> wiggle, squirm all you want,,but thats the facts...


If the ban had been kept in place..... those things would be virtually impossible for the average suicidal maniac to get hold of.

----------


## Devil505

> A hyperlink is not an argument. 
> 
> If you hold that the states did indeed write in their compact that they were delegating such powers, feel free to supply the relvant text.


They all agreed to the terms of the Constitution when they ratified it.....including The Supremacy Clause.

----------


## Rutabaga

> If the ban had been kept in place..... those things would be virtually impossible for the average suicidal maniac to get hold of.


wrong again.

----------


## Devil505

> wrong again.


Right again.....and obviously so..Where would they get them?

----------


## Victory

> If the ban had been kept in place..... those things would be virtually impossible for the average suicidal maniac to get hold of.


Prove it.

Guns are extremely restricted in Mexico and yet. . .

Prove it.

How can a former DEA guy be so blind to this truth?

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> If the ban had been kept in place..... those things would be virtually impossible for the average suicidal maniac to get hold of.


That is not correct, Devil. You should know this better than anyone! I can walk down to the street corner not two blocks from the house and purchase an automatic weapon. There's nothing that even comes close to "impossible" in this equation. What you're spouting is complete nonsense. "The law" is of very little consequence when it comes to things like weapons, drugs, sex, ...

And if I can do it, then anyone can, including suicidals and the mentally ill and all the rest. I look like a cop (that's what they keep telling me, anyway), so, if they're willing to sell to me then they'll sell to anyone! How is it that you can conjure up concepts like "impossible", even in your wildest fantasies?

Where do you come up with this stuff, Devil? Is it (gasp) Democratic talking points?

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Prove it.
> 
> Guns are extremely restricted in Mexico and yet. . .
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> How can a former DEA guy be so blind to this truth?


Because your "Truth" is obviously BS.I asked where the average suicidal maniac would get hi cap magazines if new ones were't sold in stores and all the old ones had been bought up years ago?....*answer=Nowhere!*

----------


## nonsqtr

> Because your "Truth" is obviously BS.I asked where the average suicidal maniac would get hi cap magazines if new ones were't sold in stores and all the old ones had been bought up years ago?....*answer=Nowhere!*


Come on Devil, now you're just bein' stupid. Want me to show you? Come on over, man, won't take us but ten minutes.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Because your "Truth" is obviously BS.I asked where the average suicidal maniac would get hi cap magazines if new ones were't sold in stores and all the old ones had been bought up years ago?....*answer=Nowhere!*


And yet in Mexico. . .

You sure you used to work for the DEA?

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> That is not correct, Devil. You should know this better than anyone! I can walk down to the street corner not two blocks from the house and purchase an automatic weapon. There's nothing that even comes close to "impossible" in this equation. What you're spouting is complete nonsense. "The law" is of very little consequence when it comes to things like weapons, drugs, sex, ...
> 
> And if I can do it, then anyone can, including suicidals and the mentally ill and all the rest. I look like a cop (that's what they keep telling me, anyway), so, if they're willing to sell to me then they'll sell to anyone! How is it that you can conjure up concepts like "impossible", even in your wildest fantasies?
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff, Devil? Is it (gasp) Democratic talking points?


Find me any mass school/mall/movie theater shooter who purchased weapons or hi cap magazines illegally off criminals or the black market.
They all got them at home or from gun stores where they were purchased legally either by the shooter or the shooter's relatives.

Point is they shouldn't be sold that easily in stores to civilians.

----------


## Devil505

> And yet in Mexico. . .
> 
> You sure you used to work for the DEA?


see post 500

----------


## Green Man

> They all agreed to the terms of the Constitution when they ratified it.....including The Supremacy Clause.


Yet you are unable to quote where they wrote in their compact that they were giving power to congress to restrict what guns the people of the states may own.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yet you are unable to quote where they wrote in their compact that they were giving power to congress to restrict what guns the people of the states may own.


Ha ha  - there's that highly inconvenient Constitution again.  :Smile: 

Well, this is part of the "shift in responsibility" that happened when FedGov made itself lord and master over the States, during the Reconstruction. Since it was now lord and master, FedGov had to assume the responsibility for all the sordid stuff that went on in the States, including gun regulation. Hence, we now have "federal" gun regulation. Yes it is technically un-Constitutional. But so's a lot of things.  :Frown:

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Victory (10-28-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And yet in Mexico. . .
> 
> You sure you used to work for the DEA?


He did, but it was decades ago and he's been on full(?) disability ever since.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Find me any mass school/mall/movie theater shooter who purchased weapons or hi cap magazines illegally off criminals or the black market.
> They all got them at home or from gun stores where they were purchased legally either by the shooter or the shooter's relatives.
> 
> Point is they shouldn't be sold that easily in stores to civilians.


Now you are being totally absurd.  Why would they need to buy them illegally if they could buy them legally.  If they were illegal then they would have purchased them illegally.  Terms like legal and illegal only apply to the law abiding citizen.  The law breaker doesn't give a whit about the law.  

Unless they were unobtainable anywhere in the known universe the criminal element would have always have access to them.  They would then be sold to the nut cases you so lovingly speak of.

Heroin is illegal in most, if not all, countries yet it can still be bought and sold in city in the United States.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014),Sled Dog (10-29-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> He did, but it was decades ago and he's been on full(?) disability ever since.



shot in the ass and had his brains blown out?????

----------


## johnson

> Yet you are unable to quote where they wrote in their compact that they were giving power to congress to restrict what guns the people of the states may own.


Apparently those restrictions came later on in time.

----------


## Devil505

> Now you are being totally absurd.  Why would they need to buy them illegally if they could buy them legally.  If they were illegal then they would have purchased them illegally.


We're talking about suicidal kids and nuts who either bought their weapons legally or took them from their home where they were owned legally.
If they weren't legally available  they wouldn't have had them.

This is such common-sense that further debate is useless.
Suicidal kids/maniacs don't buy weapons from criminals or the black market.

----------


## Victory

> Find me any mass school/mall/movie theater shooter who purchased *weapons or hi cap magazines illegally off criminals or the black market.*
> They all got them at home or from gun stores where they were purchased legally either by the shooter or the shooter's relatives.
> 
> Point is they shouldn't be sold that easily in stores to civilians.


North Hollywood Shoot Out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout




> It was speculated that Phillips had legally purchased two of the AK-47s and then illegally converted them to full automatic. However, as Phillips was a convicted felon *it was not possible for him to legally purchase firearms*


You're welcome.

And you don't "make" high cap magazines at home.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-28-2014)

----------


## johnson

> Now you are being totally absurd.  Why would they need to buy them illegally if they could buy them legally.  If they were illegal then they would have purchased them illegally.  Terms like legal and illegal only apply to the law abiding citizen.  The law breaker doesn't give a whit about the law.  
> 
> Unless they were unobtainable anywhere in the known universe the criminal element would have always have access to them.  They would then be sold to the nut cases you so lovingly speak of.
> 
> Heroin is illegal in most, if not all, countries yet it can still be bought and sold in city in the United States.


I doubt that criminals peddle very many illegal firearms and equipment to non-criminals. But you do make a good point in that criminals find 
a way to purchase illegal stuff.  I prefer to go with Devil's opinion that the shooters most likely will get the stuff from their homes.

Folks need to be more careful about keeping lethal weapons locked away when not in use. That is just common sense to me and is not asking to much
of anyone.

----------

Devil505 (10-28-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I doubt that criminals peddle very many illegal firearms and equipment to non-criminals. But you do make a good point in that criminals find 
> a way to purchase illegal stuff.  I prefer to go with Devil's opinion that the shooters most likely will get the stuff from their homes.
> 
> Folks need to be more careful about keeping lethal weapons locked away when not in use. That is just common sense to me and is not asking to much
> of anyone.


The mass shooting involved the mentally ill.  That's a different problem from the #1 killer of black males age 15-34: homicide.   Banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" won't solve the murder rate of black young men.

----------


## johnson

> That is not correct, Devil. You should know this better than anyone! I can walk down to the street corner not two blocks from the house and purchase an automatic weapon. There's nothing that even comes close to "impossible" in this equation. What you're spouting is complete nonsense. "The law" is of very little consequence when it comes to things like weapons, drugs, sex, ...
> 
> And if I can do it, then anyone can, including suicidals and the mentally ill and all the rest. I look like a cop (that's what they keep telling me, anyway), so, if they're willing to sell to me then they'll sell to anyone! How is it that you can conjure up concepts like "impossible", even in your wildest fantasies?
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff, Devil? Is it (gasp) Democratic talking points?


Do you eat donuts and have flat feet?   :Headbang:

----------


## Devil505

> North Hollywood Shoot Out
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> And you don't "make" high cap magazines at home.


Those were two bank robbers who were caught in the act of robbing a bank. (actually the only two that died that day were the 2 bank robbers)
Criminals will always be able to get dangerous weapons but criminals are out for money.
Suicidal kids and nuts are out to kill themselves and take lot's of others with them.
They.....nuts....are not criminals...they are insane!

----------


## johnson

> The mass shooting involved the mentally ill.  That's a different problem from the #1 killer of black males age 15-34: homicide.   Banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" won't solve the murder rate of black young men.


 You could be right on that point Max. The blacks have a separate and dangerous set of social rules though.  I don't think anyone is saying that e
tighter gun controls will reduce black on black homicide but hopefully it would prevent  fools from spraying school children with lead.

The blacks have made their nest so now they can lie in it.  Life itself doesn't seem to mean much to many blacks and having a gun to shoot up the place must make them feel empowered,, for what I don't know.   Laws are made to protect innocent and law abiding people so seeing a black doing harm with a firearm just supports my contention that they are friggin' animals.

----------


## johnson

> The mass shooting involved the mentally ill.  That's a different problem from the #1 killer of black males age 15-34: homicide.   Banning high capacity magazines and "assault rifles" won't solve the murder rate of black young men.


I have been around enough to see that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who are walking the thin line between sanity and being a basket case.  We owe it to the community and even to them to lessen the chance they do something that is terribly wrong.
For example, my stepdaughter is suicidal so the last thing she needs is access to firearms.

My kids mother was living way beyond her means and she flipped out. She sat down in a closet, put a .38 in her mouth, and blew the
top of her head off. Thankfully I was not living with her at the time but it was really hard on my teenage children.

----------


## Devil505

> I prefer to go with Devil's opinion that the shooters most likely will get the stuff from their homes.


Here's a list of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/

While I haven't read through all of them, I can't think of one that was perpetrated with weapons that were obtained illegally....other than being stolen from their home.
The argument that lessening civilian access to machine guns, grenades, 100 round drum magazines and other dangerous weapons wouldn't save lives is patently absurd.

----------


## Invayne

> You could be right on that point Max. The blacks have a separate and dangerous set of social rules though.  I don't think anyone is saying that e
> tighter gun controls will reduce black on black homicide but hopefully it would prevent  fools from spraying school children with lead.
> 
> The blacks have made their nest so now they can lie in it.  Life itself doesn't seem to mean much to many blacks and having a gun to shoot up the place must make them feel empowered,, for what I don't know.   Laws are made to protect innocent and law abiding people so seeing a black doing harm with a firearm just supports my contention that they are friggin' animals.

----------

Sled Dog (10-29-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Here's a list of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/
> 
> While I haven't read through all of them, I can't think of one that was perpetrated with weapons that were obtained illegally....other than being stolen from their home.


Which ones didn't involve someone with known mental issues or for what they consider part of a war (and possibly mentally ill)? 

Why don't you like to discuss mental issues, @Devil505?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I have been around enough to see that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who are walking the thin line between sanity and being a basket case.  We owe it to the community and even to them to lessen the chance they do something that is terribly wrong.
> For example, my stepdaughter is suicidal so the last thing she needs is access to firearms.
> 
> My kids mother was living way beyond her means and she flipped out. She sat down in a closet, put a .38 in her mouth, and blew the
> top of her head off. Thankfully I was not living with her at the time but it was really hard on my teenage children.


My aunt was chronically depressed and Bipolar for decades before she did the same thing (along with several previous suicide attempts).  

Now tell me, @johnson, why every American citizen should be deprived of their Second Amendment rights because this nation sucks at solving mental health issues?

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014),Rutabaga (10-28-2014),sotmfs (11-04-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Because your "Truth" is obviously BS.I asked where the average suicidal maniac would get hi cap magazines if new ones were't sold in stores and all the old ones had been bought up years ago?....*answer=Nowhere!*


psst...the high cap mags i bought then and the ones i can buy now are just as likely to be mfg. before 94 as after...there are literally warehouses full of all calibur and capacity..something i guess your buddies in the govt. never told you...example:the 30-40-50 rd. mags for such cal. as 5.56 sold in stores, gun shows etc. are most often pre 94 and most are ww2 surplus...as is the ammunition i buy for them now..ww2 surpluss...they dont go "bad"...

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Which ones didn't involve someone with known mental issues or for what they consider part of a war (and possibly mentally ill)? 
> 
> Why don't you like to discuss mental issues, @Devil505?


I'll discuss it all day and would certainly favor Congress spending more money on mental health..
Which party would you honestly assume would be against spending more for that?

The GOP will always find the money to fund wars.....mental health care?...not so much!

*We can't legislate insanity away but we can legislate sensible gun legislation and keep machine guns, etc ...out of the hands of the insane.*

----------


## Victory

> Those were two bank robbers who were caught in the act pif robbing a bank


Yes, and?




> Criminals will always be able to get dangerous weapons


Yes.  Thank you, Devil.  That's what I've been saying for over forty years.  Criminals will always be able to get dangerous weapons.  So passing more laws that criminals won't obey is pretty damn pointless.  Hallelujah, Brother Devil!  I'm glad you're finally seeing the light!




> They.....nuts....are not criminals...they are insane!


And since we already have laws against the insane owning guns I think we're done here.

Imagine how small the death toll would have been in the Aurora theater if somebody. . .like Jeanne Assam. . .had been carrying concealed.




Now allow me to thwart your feeble replies:

_But she was a cop!_
No.  She was a FIRED cop.  That means she wasn't "good enough" to be a cop.  She was, in fact, perceived as a trouble maker in her previous job.
_But she had training!_
Yes, she did.  Training is good.  And nowhere have you ever mentioned training until now thanks to me.  The truth is you don't care about training.  You care about disarming people like jobless, trouble maker, civilian Jeanne Assam who ended up taking down a killer loaded with a thousand rounds of ammo and body armor.  And she ended up _saving the very people who would reject her_ for being a lesbian.  I can imagine Jesus putting His arm around her saying, "Sister, I know how you feel."  I for one am glad she clung to her Bible and her gun.

She destroys your idea that only squeaky clean people should be allowed to carry guns.  She destroys your idea that "nobody needs high capacity magazines."  She shot 10 rounds in the guy and he still wasn't dead because he had body armor.

----------

Invayne (10-28-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> Apparently those restrictions came later on in time.


Were they writen in some amendment?

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Yes, and?


*Criminals are not our major problem*...they use guns to intimidate mainly to get money.
Suicidal maniacs are our major problem and responsible for almost all the mass deaths we've seen in recent years.
They want to die and take as many of us with them that they can.






> Yes.  Thank you, Devil.  That's what I've been saying for over forty years.  Criminals will always be able to get dangerous weapons.  So passing more laws that criminals won't obey is pretty damn pointless.  Hallelujah, Brother Devil!  I'm glad you're finally seeing the light!


Look up. 
Criminals are not our major problem. Maniacs with guns are!






> And since we already have laws against the insane owning guns I think we're done here.


Look at that list of the 25 worst shootings and you find all....or almost all used guns legally purchased.
*You* may be sane and buy a machine gun or hi cap mags but your 14 year old son may be suicidal and want to kill everyone in his school *with your machine gun!
*







> Imagine how small the death toll would have been in the Aurora theater if somebody. . .like Jeanne Assam. . .had been carrying concealed.


Imagine how much smallerl the death toll would have been in the Aurora theater if the shooter couldn't have bought a 100 round drum magazine in the first place?

----------


## Victory

> Criminals are not our major problem...they use guns to intimidate mainly to get money.
> Suicidal maniacs are our major problem and responsible for almost all the deaths we've seen in recent years.


Prove it.

Or else you're talking out of your ass again.

I'm thinking a lot more people die in gang related shootings than these "suicidal maniacs" but please, go ahead.  Make your point.

----------


## Invayne

> *Criminals are not our major problem*...they use guns to intimidate mainly to get money.
> Suicidal maniacs are our major problem and responsible for almost all the deaths we've seen in recent years.
> They want to die and take as many of us with them that they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up. 
> Criminals are not our major problem. Maniacs with guns are!
> ...


Devil, I have to say that I almost believe that you are one of those professional government trolls I keep hearing about. How much do you get paid for posting this nonsense?  :Smile:

----------

Rutabaga (10-28-2014),Victory (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Devil, I have to say that I almost believe that you are one of those professional government trolls I keep hearing about. How much do you get paid for posting this nonsense?


Paranoia is a debilitating disease.

----------


## nonsqtr

Overall this has been a very good thread! Thanks everyone.  :Smile:

----------


## East of the Beast

of course it does...ask any victim of a home invasion

----------


## Invayne

> Paranoia is a debilitating disease.


No, I just have to wonder because whenever someone debunks your theories, you totally ignore them like it never happened. Interesting...

----------

Green Man (10-28-2014),Rutabaga (10-28-2014),Victory (10-29-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Overall this has been a very good thread! Thanks everyone.


I have popcorn. Want some?  :Smile:

----------


## Devil505

> No, I just have to wonder because whenever someone debunks your theories, you totally ignore them like it never happened. Interesting...


Example please? (seems to me I spend most of my time here defending my opinions/theories. Might I have missed  a few challenges?.,..possibly)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'll discuss it all day and would certainly favor Congress spending more money on mental health..
> Which party would you honestly assume would be against spending more for that?
> 
> The GOP will always find the money to fund wars.....mental health care?...not so much!
> 
> *We can't legislate insanity away but we can legislate sensible gun legislation and keep machine guns, etc ...out of the hands of the insane.*


First, you, like your fellow Democrats, are much more concerned about taking guns out of the hands of law-biding American citizens than on legislating better mental health care.   What major bills regarding mental health care have been generated in the past 6 years which address this specific issue?

Second, as stated previously, I support "sensible gun legislation".  What isn't sensible is telling law-biding, innocent Americans of guns, magazines and other additional restrictions.  What isn't sensible is tracking these innocent Americans for the rest of their lives simply because they choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.   Now, if you have a proposal for "sensible gun legislation", let's hear it.

----------


## Invayne

> Example please? (seems to me I spend most of my time here defending my opinions/theories. Might I have missed  a few challenges?.,..possibly)


I've seen it in this thread...I'm too lazy to look for it again.  :Smile:

----------


## Green Man

> *The GOP is against both*....funding to help the mentally ill and sensible gun control legislation.
> They are in the back pockets of corporate America and the NRA.


When the states established their compact and wrote down its rules, they never wrote anything about the federal government having power to enact gun control legislation or the power to help the mentally ill.

----------


## Devil505

> I've seen it in this thread...I'm too lazy to look for it again.


So yet another BS accusation that can't be supported.
Those who can't debate, insult and accuse instead.

----------


## Devil505

> When the states established their compact and wrote down its rules, they never wrote anything about the federal government having power to enact gun control legislation or the power to help the mentally ill.


When the states ratified the Constitution they accepted The Supremacy Clause.

*Supremacy Clause* 
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

----------


## Roadmaster

> So yet another BS accusation that can't be supported.
> Those who can't debate, insult and accuse instead.


 Because we know liberals,  all they do is lie to try and pass a law. You could care less if guns were taken from everyone.

----------


## Devil505

> Because we know liberals,  all they do is lie to try and pass a law. You could care less if guns were taken from everyone.


Very deep.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Very deep.


 And the truth.

----------


## Devil505

> And the truth.


Fine.

BTW......I heard you have not had an easy life and I wanted to commend you on spending your time constructively debating issues of the day online.
There are a lot less constructive things we could all be doing so I do respect your efforts!  :Thumbsup20:  (no punchline!<G>)

----------


## Victory

> No, I just have to wonder because whenever someone debunks your theories, you totally ignore them like it never happened. Interesting...


Hello?

 @Devil505 have you met Jeanne Assam?  Of course you have.  You just met her with silence that's all.

----------

Invayne (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Hello?
> 
>  @Devil505 have you met Jeanne Assam?  Of course you have.  You just met her with silence that's all.


Never heard of her.
We gonna play games here or is there a point you'd like to make?

----------


## Victory

> Example please? (seems to me I spend most of my time here defending my opinions/theories. Might I have missed  a few challenges?.,..possibly)


Jeanne Assam.

----------


## Victory

> Never heard of her.
> We gonna play games here or is there a point you'd like to make?


Don't lie.

Post 522.  Jeanne Assam.  Not the first time I've brought her up to you in detail.  You consistently avoid talking about her.

And post 525.  You avoid the truth like it's Ebola.

----------


## Devil505

> Don't lie.
> 
> Post 522.  Jeanne Assam.  Not the first time I've brought her up to you in detail.  You consistently avoid talking about her.


Look pal, I don't care how many times you brought her up..... I never watched your video or spent much time reading your weak arguments...........and when you start a post accusing me of lying because I don't pay a lot of attention to anything you post.....you have already lost both my interest and the debate.

Change your name to "Defeat"..it's more suiting.

----------


## Victory

> Look pal, I don't care how many times you brought her up..... I never watched your video or spent much time reading your weak arguments...........and when you start a post accusing me of lying because I don't pay a lot of attention to anything you post.....you have already lost both my interest and the debate.


As Invayne said. . .




> I just have to wonder because whenever someone debunks your theories, you totally ignore them like it never happened. Interesting...


It seems like you post to just about every one of my replies. . .except the coup de grâce.  You don't reply because you can't.  And so you make like it never happened.

You can come up with any whiny, irrelevant, lame excuse you want.  It just underscores your penchant for ignoring the truth when it stares you in the face.

Does being a government poster pay well?

----------

Green Man (10-29-2014),Invayne (10-30-2014),Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## squidward

> I never watched your video or spent much time reading your weak arguments...........


I'm surprised, ............not.

----------


## Sled Dog

> HINT TO THE UNIFORMED. (That means you @Devil505). 
> 
> The Congress of the United States of America IS NOT AUTHORIZED to finance health matters of any sort, including lunatics. That function is to be performed by the individual states at their convenience.
> 
> BOMBS...are part of the national defense and thus ARE a REQUIREMENT of the Congress.


Oh, I'm bad.

Clearly that should have been "uninformed".   Like the janitor in a public school.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Agreed. Education is better than confiscation.


Education on the high-school level, in fact as a graduation REQUIREMENT, would eliminate the mystique of a simple mechanical gadget that slaps a percussion cap and forces chemical reactions that propel a bullet.

As far as I'm concerned ONLY military veterans should be allowed to teach children anway.   Society should place their best examples for the children to emulate.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Education on the high-school level, in fact as a graduation REQUIREMENT, would eliminate the mystique of a simple mechanical gadget that slaps a percussion cap and forces chemical reactions that propel a bullet.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned ONLY military veterans should be allowed to teach children anway.   Society should place their best examples for the children to emulate.


I think only veterans should have the right to vote.  If you are not willing to defend the country when why should you have a say in how its run?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Deja vu. I have heard that stale argument before.


Bugs the hell out of you that a simple FACT can totally destroy your pretty and deceitful feel-good empty arguments, doesn't it?

Do tell us all about the guns that jump up and shoot people.




> A firearm has the advantage over other weapons such as knives and clubs in that it allows the operator to fire from a
> distance and avoid being entangled with the victim's defenses such as his hands. It is relatively small and easily concealed, and is portable.


The only recent examples of that I can recall is the Charles Brain Tumor Whitman Tower Shooter in Texas and the two muslim terrorists who were sniping citizens in the Washington DC area a decade or so ago.

Almost all the other shootings were up close, very personal, and negated the advantages a chemically propelled projectile weapon is designed to give it's user. So your argument isn't even an argument. It's just noisy crap to avoid the REAL ISSUE...which is that you just said that PEOPLE may stand afar and SHOOT. You'll notice you didn't say the gun had the advantage, the "operator" did. 

I'm going to assume you aren't talking about Marcus Chong.




> And the larger mags gives the shooter staying power.


And the logical response to that is:

What fucking difference does a "larger mag" offer if your first condition is true and your mandatory "operator" is standing away from the killing field, thus affording himself all the time in the world to drop clips and jack in new ones?

That's the problem with the gun grabbers. They spew gallons of drivel and don't realize that logic has structure. 




> You will play hell trying to convince me that guns were not intended to maim and kill living creatures, and that includes people.


Why would I waste time doing that?

The 29th Federalist paper states EXACTLY WHY the Second Amendment exists: 

To shoot and main and KILL tyrants.

Which in this day and age means RODENTS.

I don't hide from that fact. You should try to face it some day yourself.




> The fly in your argument is that people
> are fallible and that some flip out and do terrible damage to innocents.


The fucking dead RODENT in your argument is that people do go crazy, and YOU want everyone else to be unarmed, like they were little children in a public elementary school, hiding behind the young girl of a teacher who tries to stand between them and the maniac.   

Oh, that's right.  I'm just being a right-wing extremist, everyone knows that there's never been a case where a crazy lunatic on psychotropic meds went on a rampage that killed more than two dozen small children and teachers in a public school.  So there's no point in wishing the teachers had access to something TO SHOOT BACK WITH.

Right?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think only veterans should have the right to vote. If you are not willing to defend the country when why should you have a say in how its run?


A very good baseline.   I have MY DD214.   I'm all set to go.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, I was referencing the claim that private citizens bought hi capacity magazines just to destroy them.


I can't imagine even liberal loonies doing that.

In fact, it's impossible to imagine liberals doing anything like that.  They're the ones insisting those magazines be stolen by the government, because they're too cheap to do what you suggested.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Of course guns are made to kill. Cars kill.. but that's NOT the intent. We have a real fetish, head in the sand politics about guns. Is the urge to kill a sacred right? A hammer is a tool with a purpose...so is a gun. There's no DENIAL about what a hammer is. Nobody acts like a Hammer is the basis of civilized life,of our religion or ethics. It is a tool. So is a gun. Neither makes your dick super large. Neither makes you more SUPERIOR. 
> 
> While I can kill with a car, a hammer....those tools are not designed to KILL. Guns are. We need some degree of SANITY. Don't let the crazy guy drive the bus.


Hmm...guns are built to kill.  There are 300,000,000 or so guns in the US.

Once you peel away the gangsters shooting each other, the suicides, the criminal suspects justifiably shot by police (like Thug Mountain) and criminals shot in self-defense (like Thug Martin-Obama), you have what, less than a thousand shooting related deaths a year?  Since I'm too lazy to look the number up, you do it.

Meanwhile, there are something like 62,000,000 cars in the US.  That's one car for every five firearms.

Cars are implicated in the average annual deaths of something like 35,000 people.   That's every year.

So lets do what liberals abhor.  Let's do the math.

A thousand innocents shot.   300,000,000 guns.  That means that one out of every 300,000 guns is used in a shooting we would care about.

35,000 are killed by 62,000,000 cars.  That's 1771 cars per death.   

Now 300,000 / 1771 is  169.   Cars, which are ENGINEERED to protect lives, are 170 TIMES MORE DEADLY than guns, which are engineered to be deadly.

Did the engineers fuck up, or is your argument completely impossible?

----------


## Sled Dog

> If by "jet fuel" you mean "a spirit of cohesion that can only come from Progressive policies, the law, and confidence" then yes, I would agree.


No.

I meant kerosene.

----------


## Sled Dog

> but civilians have always been allowed to own hand grenades, machine guns, fully functioning tanks and ammo, bazooooookas, flame throwers, military aircraft and ammo, etc. 
> 
> you say you were a fed, but are ignorant of these facts?
> 
> 
> google is your friend..educate yourself...



He claims to be former DEA, so he doesn't have much experience with real law enforcement or real police.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Well.... in most places, a suicidal tendency is considered a mental illness.
> 
> All those terrorists who blow themselves up, are mentally ill, they're loony tunes.
> 
> But like, we don't set up suicide prevention hotlines for them, do we? We don't have compassion for them, we don't think of them as mentally ill "first" and we don't consider that the violence may be nothing but a psychological symptom of mental illness.
> 
> On the other hand, depression is also a mental illness. So, if we're letting people on antidepressants walk around with weapons then isn't that exactly the same as having a terrorist in our midst?


Your key phrase in all this is "we're letting people on antidepressants walk around".

Since we can't tattoo the lunatics on their foreheads,  since we can't violate doctor-patient privacy ("HIPPA laws"? - whatever, I certainly don't want that barrier violated by anyone in government), and since it's flatly unconstitutional to restrict the flow of weapons in society, then we need to lock up the potentially dangerous people.

Which I object to as a matter of libertarian reality.   The Rodents already define everyone who owns a gun or a bible as a "nut", whereas I define only people with Eustaces as a "nut".  Regardless, there's nothing the Rodents want to do more than to take away our firearms and then lock us all up.

In that order.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Because your "Truth" is obviously BS.I asked where the average suicidal maniac would get hi cap magazines if new ones were't sold in stores and all the old ones had been bought up years ago?....*answer=Nowhere!*


Here's a question for the alleged DEA guy...

... do tell, since crystal meth isn't sold in stores, WHERE DO those people buy it?

Thanks to those friggin' drug laws, decent Americans can't buy pseudophedrine when they have a stuffed nose.   Fuck the damn drug war, fuck the methheads, Americans NEED clear sinuses.

And Americans NEED hi-cap magazines.

Precisely because the infantry has them.

----------


## Sled Dog

> We're talking about suicidal kids and nuts who either bought their weapons legally or took them from their home where they were owned legally.
> If they weren't legally available they wouldn't have had them.
> 
> This is such common-sense that further debate is useless.
> Suicidal kids/maniacs don't buy weapons from criminals or the black market.


You are of course posting non sequiturs because you simply cannot address the question.

People don't buy aspirin from their crack dealers because they can buy aspirin at the drug store.

People don't buy hi-cap mags from their local illegal arms dealer because they can buy them at their local gun shop, or from private parties, quite legally.

People in law enforcement recognize that when something is legal there's no black market for the product.  

Why are you ignorant of this basic fact of economics?

----------


## Sled Dog

> For example, my stepdaughter is suicidal so the last thing she needs is access to firearms.


Do you allow her in the kitchen unsupervised?

MEN use guns to suicide, women are more likely to cut themselves.   My aunt was an exception.  Knowing her son was a paramedic serving in her district, she waited until he was on duty before walking out in to the driveway and shooting herself in the heart.   Just for him.

Do tell what actions could have prevented her from doing a little seppuku in the front yard instead?




> My kids mother was living way beyond her means and she flipped out. She sat down in a closet, put a .38 in her mouth, and blew the top of her head off. Thankfully I was not living with her at the time but it was really hard on my teenage children.


Thankfully because if you were home she might have taken other actions first?

Thankfully you weren't home because you could have prevented it?

Thankfully why?  That your kids got to see it firsthand but not you?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Here's a list of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/
> 
> While I haven't read through all of them, I can't think of one that was perpetrated with weapons that were obtained illegally....other than being stolen from their home.
> The argument that lessening civilian access to machine guns, grenades, 100 round drum magazines and other dangerous weapons wouldn't save lives is patently absurd.



Seung-Hui Cho (32) - foreign national, alien, mental case.  Should have been deported when diagnosed.

Adam Lanza (27) - retard, mother supposedly made the mistake of discussing institutionalizing him where he could overhear.  Also made the idiot liberal mistake of beleiving that teaching a retard how to fire weapons would be beneficial. - VICTIMS UNARMED

George Hennard (23) - looney tunes and restaurant remodeler. - VICTIMS UNARMED

James Huberty (21) - looney tunes and restaurant remodeler. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Charles Whitman (18) - brain tumored looney tunes. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Patrick Sherrill (18) - postal worker.   Postal workers won't be killing people once the post office is disbanded. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan Obama (13) - TERRORIST. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Jiverly Wong (13) - foreigner.  And looney tunes. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Harris and Klebold (13) - spawn of liberals. Whiny little bitches with tiny dicks. - VICTIMS UNARMED

George Banks (13) - looney tunes. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Howard Unruh 13) - looney tunes, possibly would be diagnosed with PTSD today and all the liberals would be demanding that ALL veterans have their guns taken away. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Aaron Alexis (12) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

James Holmes (12) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Mark Barton (12) - looney tunes. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Michael McLendon (10) looney tunes. - VICTIMS UNARMED

Jeff Weise (9) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

James Pough (9) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Scott Evans (8) -  looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Omar Thornton (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Christopher Speight (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Robert Stewart (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Robert Hawkins (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Gian Luigi Ferri (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Joseph Wesbecker (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

Carl Brown (8) - looney tunes.  - VICTIMS UNARMED

======

What does this list prove?

That looney and unarmed people are not a good party mix.  Better stick to Chex.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-29-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I have popcorn. Want some?


No! I need amphetamines! I have work!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If the ban had been kept in place..... those things would be virtually impossible for the average suicidal maniac to get hold of.


Incorrect as previously shown.  The ban did nothing to provide help for suicidal maniacs nor separate the suicidal maniacs from law-biding citizens.   All it did was prevent selling new manufacture high-capacity magazines and scary-looking semi-automatic rifles.  It was a bullshit law and deserved to expire.

----------

Invayne (10-30-2014),Sled Dog (10-30-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> When the states ratified the Constitution they accepted The Supremacy Clause.


And? 

Yes, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Yet the drafters of the constitution wrote nothing in it that grants power to enact gun control legislation or the power to help the mentally ill.

----------


## Devil505

> At a point in time a seemingly normal person might crack and do something awful. The idea of limiting the types of firearms is to lessen the damage that can
> be done when someone flips out.  How's it go, a stitch in time saves nine.
> 
> Ignoring this possibility is not only calloused but is irresponsibie.


This post really ends the discussion for me.

It is such obvious common sense that anyone who pretends not to understand it is simply not worth arguing with.

The Far Right's argument is so weak that they have to pretend that those of us who support sensible gun control laws.....which happens to include most gun owners....are arguing that all guns are bad and that people shouldn't be able to own/bear them.
That argument is total BS and they know it.

----------


## Devil505

> You realize, of course, this makes you an absolute gun banner--not a partial gun banner, not somebody who is only against "high capacity magazines" or "scary military type weapons"--but a black and white, total and absolute gun banner.
> 
> A flipped out person will find that one weapon in an otherwise unarmed citizenry and use it.  If you don't agree then you need to modify your stance.  This is your own stance reflected back at you.


That's not what he's saying at all.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Sensible Gun Control Laws.  I love those little bumper sticker quotes designed to end any possible discussion of why the liberals should not be able to cut your nuts offl

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-29-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Devil
Can you please define the limits of "sensible gun control laws"?  Can you give us a few examples of the ultimate that you might require and still be a sensible gun control law?

----------


## Devil505

> Devil
> Can you please define the limits of "sensible gun control laws"?  Can you give us a few examples of the ultimate that you might require and still be a sensible gun control law?


Those are questions of opinion that only we collectively can answer through our Congress and subject to SCOTUS review for Constitutionality.

My *opinion* is that civilians have no need or right to own/bear *military* arms for either sport or self-defense because they are ill-suited for either and far to lethal in the wrong hands. (who decides what's a military arm?.....we all do collectively via our Congress)

Here's a question for your side: The 2nd amendment refers to "Arms" and.... since nuclear weapons are "arms' also.....doesn't the 2nd A guarantee a law abiding citizen's right to own/bear nukes as well?
(The only answer that would be consistent with your side's argument is *Yes..*...civilians should be able to own nukes.....*and that's fucking nuts!*)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sensible Gun Control Laws.  I love those little bumper sticker quotes designed to end any possible discussion of why the liberals should not be able to cut your nuts offl


Yes.  It's funny how it's in code.  @Devil505 has been asked several times to detail exactly what "sensible gun control laws" means yet all he's done is either avoid answering or repeat the Clinton anti-gun ban, which obviously wasn't sensible.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Those are questions of opinion that only we collectively can answer through our Congress and subject to SCOTUS review for Constitutionality.
> 
> My *opinion* is that civilians have no need or right to own/bear *military* arms for either sport or selfdefense because they are far to lethal in the wrong hands. (who decides what's a military arm?.....we all do collectively via our Congress)
> 
> Here's a question for your side: The 2nd amendment refers to "Arms" and.... since nuclear weapons are "arms' also.....doesn't the 2nd A guarantee a law abiding citizen's right to own/bear nukes as well?



That is a matter of opinion that only we collectively can answer through our Congress and subject to SCOTUS review for Constitutionality

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> My *opinion* is that civilians have no need or right to own/bear *military* arms for either sport or self-defense because they are far to lethal in the wrong hands. (who decides what's a military arm?.....we all do collectively via our Congress)?


Lemme guess, "Military arms" means anything that shoots a bullet?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yes.  It's funny how it's in code.  @Devil505 has been asked several times to detail exactly what "sensible gun control laws" means yet all he's done is either avoid answering or repeat the Clinton anti-gun ban, which obviously wasn't sensible.


 @Max Rockatansky

What is "reasonable"?

This is a serious question.  My own reading of the Constitution's Amendment II makes the pronouncement pretty unambiguous.

There are places where the Constitution says, "_Congress shall make no law..._" leaving action open to States and municipalities to so do.  But a pronouncement such as "_The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed_" is as blunt as you can get.

Not "citizens."  The PEOPLE.

Not "Congress."  NO governmental arm can infringe.

That said...what is "reasonable"?

And, are we not seeing the "Slippery Slope" illustrated?  "Reasonable" restrictions are implemented; and instead of being satisfied, the anti-gun groups just keep pushing for MORE?

----------


## Green Man

> Those are questions of opinion that only we collectively can answer through our Congress and subject to SCOTUS review for Constitutionality.


When the founders wrote their constitution, they wrote down a list of the powers they were granting to congress. They never wrote that congress had any power to limit the arms the people of the states may have. Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it governs even congress. Congress may not legally exercise powers that are not written in the constitution.

----------


## Devil505

> That is a matter of opinion that only we collectively can answer through our Congress and subject to SCOTUS review for Constitutionality


'OK...I gave you my opinion on your question above.
How about giving us your opinion on citizens owning nukes?

----------


## Devil505

> When the founders wrote their constitution, they wrote down a list of the powers they were granting to congress. They never wrote that congress had any power to limit the arms the people of the states may have. Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it governs even congress. Congress may not legally exercise powers that are not written in the constitution.


And yet Congress has written many gun control laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
What are *you* going to do about that?

Do you think civilians should be able to buy nukes?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> @Max Rockatansky
> 
> What is "reasonable"?


The ATF "yellow form" section 11 already asks several questions regarding existing laws of who may and may not purchase a firearm.   Beef up the enforcement of those laws without further burdening law-biding Americans who can legally purchase a firearm.


https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/down...f-f-4473-1.pdf

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Lemme guess, "Military arms" means anything that shoots a bullet?


Bump for @Devil505


Please define "military arms".  Be specific.  Not just "anything the military uses".

----------


## Devil505

> @Max Rockatansky
> 
> What is "reasonable"?
> 
> This is a serious question.  My own reading of the Constitution's Amendment II makes the pronouncement pretty unambiguous.
> 
> There are places where the Constitution says, "_Congress shall make no law..._" leaving action open to States and municipalities to so do.  But a pronouncement such as "_The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed_" is as blunt as you can get.
> 
> Not "citizens."  The PEOPLE.
> ...


Why can't you buy nukes?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The ATF "yellow form" section 11 already asks several questions regarding existing laws of who may and may not purchase a firearm.   Beef up the enforcement of those laws without further burdening law-biding Americans who can legally purchase a firearm.
> 
> 
> https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/down...f-f-4473-1.pdf


How does that jibe with Amendment II?

And how do you prevent us from descending down the "Slippery Slope"?

And would it not have been simpler, and preventing further attack and encroachment, had we...meaning a populist movement...promoted candidates and lawsuits and other acts to ROLL THAT BACK?

Would it not have been easier to simply allow unrestricted sale/trade of firearms, and then punish - severely - MISUSE of firearms?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> How does that jibe with Amendment II?


SCOTUS has already ruled those laws are Constitutional.   We don't need more rules, just enforcement of the present ones.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why can't you buy nukes?


For the same reason you cannot possess explosives without a license.

Mere possession is a health-and-safety hazard to those around you.

Are you familiar with the concept _reducto ad absurdum_?

----------


## Devil505

> Bump for @Devil505
> 
> 
> Please define "military arms".  Be specific.  Not just "anything the military uses".


That's an opinion question up to us collectively to thrash out in Congress.
My opinion would include *for starters:* Land mines, fully automatic firearms, grenades, mortars, tanks, high capacity magazines, etc

----------


## JustPassinThru

> SCOTUS has already ruled those laws are Constitutional.   We don't need more rules, just enforcement of the present ones.


The Supreme Court has made many rulings which ignore obvious facts; and often for political or other unwise reasons.

The ACA ruling, and the obvious vacillation by the Chief Justice after veiled threats, is just the latest of many.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why can't you buy nukes?


Dude, you always trot out that question as justification to ban all guns.  

Here's the difference; when a "firearm" is capable of blowing up an entire city if misused, it's better to put some restrictions on possession of such a device.  By your logic, since a gun can kill, we should also ban cars and swimming pools since more kids die from those every year than accidental firearm discharges.

----------


## Green Man

> And yet Congress has written many gun control laws that have been upheld by the SCOTUS.
> What are *you* going to do about that?


I'll start by pointing out that the congress is acting without any written authorization to do so, thus, it is acting contrary to the constitution.

And those who don't care about the rule of law but only about raw power will say, "So what?"




> Do you think civilians should be able to buy nukes?


No, and I would expect doing so is illegal in most states.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The Supreme Court has made many rulings which ignore obvious facts; and often for political or other unwise reasons.


So you want to shred the Constitution and get rid of the Supreme Court?  Are you an anarchist, @JustPassinThru?

----------


## Devil505

> For the same reason you cannot possess explosives without a license.
> 
> Mere possession is a health-and-safety hazard to those around you.
> 
> Are you familiar with the concept _reducto ad absurdum_?


BS!
The question exposes the weakness of your sides 2nd Amendment argument.
Nukes are arms and they are not restricted for health reasons. They are restricted because they are to obviously dangerous to allow anyone but the military to own/bear.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> BS!
> The question exposes the weakness of your sides 2nd Amendment argument.
> Nukes are arms and they are not restricted for health reasons. They are restricted because they are to obviously dangerous to allow anyone but the military to own/bear.


And how do nuclear weapons relate to this kid? Is this a "military weapon"? @Devil505

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So you want to shred the Constitution and get rid of the Supreme Court?  Are you an anarchist, @JustPassinThru?


Nope.

But I do not believe in the deity of the Supreme Court, either.  They were not transformed into oracles by simply being nominated to their position.

The failing of the Constitution was that there was no check put on the power of the Supreme Court - such as a term and time limit, or a way for a supermajority of States to override obvious political and deluded rulings.

If you're interested in this, I'd suggest you read Mark Levin's _Men in Black_.  He notes the follies, throughout history, of the Court; as well as its compromised and impaired members.

----------


## Devil505

> =
> No, and I would expect doing so is illegal in most states.


So you agree that civilians shouldn't be able to buy nukes but don't think government has the right to prevent us from buying them?
Your argument is illogical.

We have a 2nd Amendmnt right to bear arms ...so what right would any state have to infringe on our 2nd A rights?

----------


## Devil505

> And how do nuclear weapons relate to this kid? Is this a "military weapon"? @Devil505


You're dodging the question because you can't answer it and remain consistent.

The 2nd A says nothing about guns, firearms or anything other than "Arms."
Nukes are arms and therefore protected by the 2nd A too, right?


This is where your side always runs from the argument but until you can answer why the government can prohibit civilian ownership of nukes but not any other arms .....your argument logically fails.


Here's the answer: *Common Sense!
Nowhere does the Constitution require the suspension of common sense!*

----------


## Green Man

> So you agree that civilians shouldn't be able to buy nukes but don't think government has the right to prevent us from buying them?
> Your argument is illogical.


No it isn't. I said that the founders wrote down the powers they were delegating to the federal government, and they never wrote that they were delegating to it the power to limit what weapons the people of the states may own. Since they never wrote down that they were delegating such a power, they retain it. States have plenary powers, and may ban what they wish. The federal government doesn't have plenary powers but only certain power that are listed specifically in art I, sec 8. 




> We have a 2nd Amendmnt right to bear arms ...so what right would any state have to infringe on our 2nd A rights?


States have police powers.

----------


## Devil505

> Dude, you always trot out that question as justification to ban all guns.  
> 
> Here's the difference; when a "firearm" is capable of blowing up an entire city if misused, it's better to put some restrictions on possession of such a device.  By your logic, since a gun can kill, we should also ban cars and swimming pools since more kids die from those every year than accidental firearm discharges.


1. You always trot out the BS claim that I want all guns banned. (at this point that's simply a lie on your part)
2.  Show me the wording in the 2nd Amendment that says the government can infringe on my right to bear arms if those arms can blow up a city? (the 2nd A doesnt even use the word gun or firearm....it talks about "Arms")

Your side's argument is simply destroyed here and you know it which is why most of you run from this discussion of nuclear *ARMS* and the 2nd A!

----------


## Devil505

> No it isn't. I said that the founders wrote down the powers they were delegating to the federal government, and they never wrote that they were delegating to it the power to limit what weapons the people of the states may own. Since they never wrote down that they were delegating such a power, they retain it. States have plenary powers, and may ban what they wish. The federal government doesn't have plenary powers but only certain power that are listed specifically in art I, sec 8.



 



States cannot violate the Constitution.

*Supremacy Clause*

 
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. 


No state can take away any citizen's rights in violation of the Constitution....Come on man!








> States have police powers.


So what??

----------


## Graham Garner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

----------


## Green Man

> 'States cannot violate the Constitution.
> 
> *Supremacy Clause* 
> Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.


We don't disagree on the supremacy clause. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

However, there is nothing written in the constitution that limits the police powers of the states, including their power to restrict what arms people may have.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> 1. You always trot out the BS claim that I want all guns banned. (at this point that's simply a lie on your part)


Not a lie when you keep harping that "military arms" should be banned then go to great lengths to point out most guns are "military arms".  Just because you aren't honest enough to come right out and say it doesn't mean that isn't what you intend.

So once again, @Devil505, please define "military arms".  Please quit running from this question.

----------


## Devil505

> We don't disagree on the supremacy clause. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.


Obviously we disagree and your argument (below) is illogical.






> However, there is nothing written in the constitution that limits the police powers of the states, including their power to restrict what arms people may have.


LOL....There sure is!

*Supremacy Clause


Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. 
*
States cannot write/enforce laws or restrict things in violation of the Constitution.....I can't say it more clearly than that!

Edit: Maybe this will help:
If Mississippi wrote a law saying Black folks couldn't own guns......would that be ok since they have police powers?

----------


## Graham Garner

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post427536

----------


## Green Man

> Obviously we disagree and your argument (below) is illogical.
> 
> LOL....There sure is!
> 
> *Supremacy Clause
> 
> 
> Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. 
> *
> State cannot write laws or restrict things in violation of the Constitution.....I can't say it more clearly than that!


And where is it written in the constitution that any state may not restrict what arms its people may have?

And while you're at it, please show where it is written in the constitution that the federal government may restrict what arms the people of any state may have.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Define a "military" firearm, @Devil505? 

Which, if any, of these two rifles would you see banned and why?

----------


## Graham Garner

Congress has the power to regulate just about everything - even unto the very air we breathe.

----------


## Green Man

> Congress has the power to regulate just about everything - even unto the very air we breathe.


Where is that written in the constitution?

----------


## Devil505

> Not a lie when you keep harping that "military arms" should be banned then go to great lengths to point out most guns are "military arms".  Just because you aren't honest enough to come right out and say it doesn't mean that isn't what you intend.
>  So once again, @Devil505, please define "military arms".  Please quit running from this question.


I already did:


> That's an opinion question up to us collectively to thrash out in Congress.
> My opinion would include *for starters:* Land mines, fully automatic firearms, grenades, mortars, tanks, high capacity magazines, etc


How about you answering why the government can restrict ownership of nuclear arms but no other type of arms?

----------


## Devil505

> Define a "military" firearm, @Devil505? 
> 
> Which, if any, of these two rifles would you see banned and why?


First answer my question:  why the government can restrict ownership of nuclear arms but no other type of arms?

----------


## Devil505

> Define a "military" firearm, @Devil505? 
> 
> Which, if any, of these two rifles would you see banned and why?


The lower rifle I would consider a military weapon because of the hi cap magazine affixed to it.
Take away it's ability to accept mags of over ten rounds and it's the same as the top rifle....imo.(and I only argue banned from sale to civilians)

Now answer my question please.

----------


## Graham Garner

It is implicit in the provisions of Article 1, Section 8; it is an "inherent" and "implied" power.  See, e.g., The Clean Air Act.  That's the way it is - get used to it.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> 'OK...I gave you my opinion on your question above.
> How about giving us your opinion on citizens owning nukes?


I gave you my thoughts which just so happen to be the exact same as yours.  If you want to play games and dance around the question so be it.

----------


## Graham Garner

I have it firsthand from a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor at the time (he had belted down more than he could hold) that he would brook no argument on the subject. Needless to say, I did not put much faith in his argument. As for myself, I think I would prefer to trust my rights to the law courts than wait for God to act on the issue.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The lower rifle I would consider a military weapon because of the hi cap magazine affixed to it.
> Take away it's ability to accept mags of over ten rounds and it's the same as the top rifle....imo.(and I only argue banned from sale to civilians)
> 
> Now answer my question please.


Why is 10 rounds okay but 11 rounds is not? 

I already answered your nuke question in post #586.  You even quoted it in #595.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Can I own a submarine?  Isn't a submarine strictly a military vessel?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It is implicit in the provisions of Article 1, Section 8; it is an "inherent" and "implied" power.  See, e.g., The Clean Air Act.  That's the way it is - get used to it.


There is no inherent or implied power.

The Constitution ENNUMERATES powers the Federal government has; and EXPLICITLY gives those powers not ennumerated, to the States.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Can I own a submarine?  Isn't a submarine strictly a military vessel?


Yes,  you can although I think getting a license for nuclear missile or even a torpedo could involve a lot of paperwork.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Obviously we disagree and your argument (below) is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....There sure is!
> 
> *Supremacy Clause
> 
> 
> ...



The Supremacy Clause means that the states cannot contradict the Constitution.  They cannot for example decide they will reinstitute slavery.  However that does not mean the Federal Government can ignore the constitution whenever it has the urge.  The 10th Amendment clearly states that the Federal government can  only enforce  the powers specifically granted in the Constitution.  Why are you ignoring the 10th Amendment?  Or do you believe the Bill of Rights are not unlike the Declaration of Independence and are just for show?

*AMENDMENT X*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Where is that written in the constitution?



Graham is one of those who believes the Constitution is nothing but a Goddamn piece of paper and that words mean only what HE wants them to mean, neither more nor less.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I have it firsthand from a gentleman of my acquaintance at the local tavern; who, during the course of discussing the Second Amendment, stated emphatically (pounding his fist on the bar) that he had a "God-given" right to have a gun. Prudence dictated that I not ask what portion of the scriptures he relied on for such "high" authority, for I could tell from his demeanor at the time (he had belted down more than he could hold) that he would brook no argument on the subject. Needless to say, I did not put much faith in his argument. As for myself, I think I would prefer to trust my rights to the law courts than wait for God to act on the issue.


Spoken like a true conservative.

Looking towards GOVERNMENT, to protect him from those nastybad men with (_eek!_) GUNS!

----------


## Rutabaga

> Can I own a submarine?  Isn't a submarine strictly a military vessel?


sure you can..or a tank, or aircraft carrier, battleship, etc..after the breakup of the ussr, they were all readily for sale to anyone...

----------


## Green Man

> It is implicit in the provisions of Article 1, Section 8; it is an "inherent" and "implied" power.  See, e.g., The Clean Air Act.  That's the way it is - get used to it.


In other words, no written authorization in the constitution.

----------


## Green Man

> Graham is one of those who believes the Constitution is nothing but a Goddamn piece of paper and that words mean only what HE wants them to mean, neither more nor less.


Ah, he prefers the rule of individual men to the rule of law. I see.

----------


## Devil505

> Why is 10 rounds okay but 11 rounds is not?


 Same reason why 55mph is the speed limit but 56mph is speeding.

----------


## Devil505

> Can I own a submarine?  Isn't a submarine strictly a military vessel?


The sub is fine.
The weapons are military. (there are many civilian subs)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Same reason why 55mph is the speed limit but 56mph is speeding.


Not the speed limit.

Because we finally, for a brief moment, had libburls chased out of Washingtoon.  The RINOs were not yet RINOs...hadn't let the Washingtoon air poison their thought processes.

----------


## Graham Garner

Inherent Powers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheren...(United_States)

----------


## Green Man

> Inherent Powers:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheren...(United_States)


Powers exercised by government functionaries for which there is no written constitutional authority.

----------


## Graham Garner

Tell that to the Supreme Court and see how far you get with your argument.  I’m sure that the justices are waiting with bated breath for your scholarly _amicus_ brief to instruct them on this point.

----------

Devil505 (10-29-2014),Hansel (10-29-2014)

----------


## Green Man

> Tell that to the Supreme Court and see how far you get with your argument.  I’m sure that the justices are waiting with bated breath for your scholarly _amicus_ brief to instruct them on this point.


The supreme court will be just as impotent as you to show where the constitution gives written permission for the federal government to control what arms the people may have.

----------


## Graham Garner

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject.  See Justia article at:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...ameralism.html

----------

Devil505 (10-29-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Tell that to the Supreme Court and see how far you get with your argument.  I’m sure that the justices are waiting with bated breath for your scholarly _amicus_ brief to instruct them on this point.


Very interesting. There's that appeal to "authority" again, and Graham is aligned with the lefties on this point. Hm.

Well, Graham, all I can say is what I said before: your "law" ain't worth a hill of beans when it's up against 300 million pissed off Americans.

We will cast off our Supreme Morons just as quickly as we cast off King George's tax collectors, if push comes to shove.

The People won't stand for this stupid shit, Graham. If we have to restructure our government there will probably be violence, and I think you know that and I think it scares you to death.

So Graham: why don't we do the logical thing and stop with the bullshit, instead of continuing on a path whose only realistic resolution is violent?

Here's a clue: your legal precedent is going to have to change. Some of the Court decisions you're referring to, are going to have to be overturned and reconsidered. And that will happen, with or without your participation and input. If it doesn't happen, soon, there will be problems on an unimaginable scale.

The claim to "authority" isn't good enough, Graham. The only way that can be enforced is with guns, and you can look around right now and see how that's playing.

To enforce your "authority", you're going to need to roll the armored vehicles against the old farts who refuse to play, and every time that happens it's going to get on the national news, and pretty soon there won't be anyone anywhere who's willing to pay you to steal peoples' money.

----------


## Graham Garner

Again, the resort to violence.  Your suggestion that the people should take the law into their own hands has absolutely no support, either in law or fact.  Your threats of revolutionary action are not well taken.

----------


## Devil505

> Very interesting. There's that appeal to "authority" again,...


Stating a fact is not appealing to anyone.
It's pointing out reality.

----------


## Green Man

> The Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject.  See Justia article at:
> http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...ameralism.html


I note the lack of any citation of any specific written permission for the federal government to restrict what weapons the people of the states may have.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Again, the resort to violence.  Your suggestion that the people should take the law into their own hands has absolutely no support, either in law or fact.  Your threats of revolutionary action are not well taken.


I'm not threatening anything, I'm making a statement of fact, and you're being quite the fool for trying to deny it. All you gotta do is open a history book to see the truth in what I'm saying. 'Course you'd know all about that, right Mr. Lawyer?

Anyone who thinks they can keep the People down with "authority" is a complete shit-for-brains moron. Really... there's really no other way to say it.  :Dontknow:

----------


## nonsqtr

> Stating a fact is not appealing to anyone.
> It's pointing out reality.


Reality is cops get shot dead every day, Devil.

"Authority" is not reality, that's a man-made creation.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Again, the resort to violence.  Your suggestion that the people should take the law into their own hands has absolutely no support, either in law or fact.  Your threats of revolutionary action are not well taken.


btw Graham, the People make the law in this country.

The People *own* the law. It is in our hands, now and always.

----------


## Devil505

> btw Graham, the People make the law in this country.
> 
> The People *own* the law. It is in our hands, now and always.


The way We the people make laws in this country is via our freely-elected Congress.
The way those laws are judged as to constitutionality is via our SCOTUS..... who's members are appointed by our freely elected President and confirmed by our freely elected Congress..

Break those laws at your own peril and by doing so you are also defying the will of your fellow citizens.

You are not required to agree with all those laws or even the system that makes them.....but you are required to obey them or face consequences.

----------


## Victory

> My *opinion* is that civilians have no need or right to own/bear *military* arms for either sport or self-defense


Which military arms?  A 1911?  A Baretta 9mm?

There you go again getting sloppy.  Nobody knows what you really mean because YOU don't know what you really mean.

----------


## Green Man

> The way We the people make laws in this country is via our freely-elected Congress.


However, congress only has written permission to make certain laws. It can't make any old law it chooses. The states, when they wrote down the rules for their union,  included a very short list of powers they chose to delegate to the federal government. Congress may exercise the powers written on that list and no others.

----------


## Victory

> First answer my question:  why the government can restrict ownership of nuclear arms but no other type of arms?


Have you ever seen a guy in Central Park get mugged at "nuke point?"

It doesn't go well for the attacker. . .ever.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Why can't you buy nukes?


you can...you just need the right connections.

----------


## Devil505

> Which military arms?  A 1911?  A Baretta 9mm?
> 
> There you go again getting sloppy.  Nobody knows what you really mean because YOU don't know what you really mean.


The only one who's getting sloppy is you with your reading skills.
I've already answered that question a few times and insults are the mark of a weak debater.

Here's one:
*




 Originally Posted by Max Rockatansky


Please define "military arms". Be specific. Not just "anything the military uses".







 Originally Posted by Devil505


That's an opinion question up to us collectively to thrash out in Congress.
My opinion would include for starters: Land mines, fully automatic firearms, grenades, mortars, tanks, high capacity magazines, etc


*

----------


## Devil505

> you can...you just need the right connections.


Tell me where a civilian can go to get a license to buy nukes?
Then tell me which civilians own their own private nukes?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Tell me where a civilian can go to get a license to buy nukes?
> Then tell me which civilians own their own private nukes?


He didn't say getting a license.  Lighten up, he's talking about the Russian black market.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Same reason why 55mph is the speed limit but 56mph is speeding.


Someone with OCD just pulled a number out of their ass?

----------


## Victory

> First answer my question:  why the government can restrict ownership of nuclear arms but no other type of arms?


I have no delusions of you viewing this video since you've already said you don't watch them.  This is for everyone else.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's an opinion question up to us collectively to thrash out in Congress.
> My opinion would include *for starters:* Land mines, fully automatic firearms, grenades, mortars, tanks, high capacity magazines, etc


Land mines are already illegal.  So are grenades, mortars, tanks with working cannons. 

How does a magazine with over 10 rounds suddenly become a military arm?  M-16 magazines are 30 rounds.  Shouldn't it be magazines with 29 rounds an less?

----------


## Devil505

> He didn't say getting a license.  Lighten up, he's talking about the Russian black market.


LOL...If it was that easy don't you think AQ/ISIS would have them already?

----------


## Victory

> Congress has the power to regulate just about everything - even unto the very air we breathe.





> I am not a liberal.  I am a very traditional conservative.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...277#post433277


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Wow!  There they are!  Right next to each other!  I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it myself!

----------

Green Man (10-29-2014),Invayne (10-30-2014),nonsqtr (10-29-2014),Sled Dog (10-30-2014)

----------


## Victory

> The sub is fine.
> The weapons are military. (there are many civilian subs)

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> I have no delusions of you viewing this video since you've already said you don't watch them.  This is for everyone else.


OK...I watched your video and he makes absolute sense *and backs my argument!*
The reason why civilians should not own nukes or other military weapons is that they are just to dangerous and they lose the danger vs benefit test.

Just as your video argues, the exact same thing can be argued about civilians bringing guns with 100 round drum magazines into a movie theater and killing scores of people with it!

Secondly, many on your side argue the the 2nd Amendment sets no limitation on any arms...... so where does it say some are to dangerous for civilians to own in the Constitution?....*It doesn't...Common-sense tells us all we need to know!*

----------


## Victory

> OK...I watched your video and he makes absolute sense *and backs my argument!*
> The reason why civilians should not own nukes or other military weapons is that they are just to dangerous and they lose the danger vs benefit test.
> 
> Just as your video argues, the exact same thing can be argued about civilians bringing guns with 100 round drum magazines into a movie theater and killing scores of people with it!
> 
> Secondly, many on your side argue the the 2nd Amendment sets no limitation on any arms...... so where does it say some are to dangerous for civilians to own in the Constitution?....*It doesn't...Common-sense tells us all we need to know!*


No shit.  You read every one of my replies.

Doesn't back your argument.  Destroys your argument.  You've supposed many times that gun advocates with their strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment suggest that people should be allowed to carry nukes.  Noir destroys your silly pretzel logic.  Do you even know who he is?  Who he works for?  If you did, you would totally reword your reply.

And "the exact same thing" can NOT be argued about 100 round mags.  A 100 round mag doesn't kill the person pulling the trigger.  A hand operated nuke does.  See how that's different?

Noir is 100% in favor of civilians owning 100 round mags.  Enjoy your fail.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Tell me where a civilian can go to get a license to buy nukes?
> Then tell me which civilians own their own private nukes?


tell me what stops them from doing so?

law?

LOLOLOLOLLOLLLLL!!!

you just as cute as a bugs ear!!

----------


## Rutabaga

> Land mines are already illegal.  So are grenades, mortars, tanks with working cannons. 
> 
> How does a magazine with over 10 rounds suddenly become a military arm?  M-16 magazines are 30 rounds.  Shouldn't it be magazines with 29 rounds an less?



with all due respect, tanks, live ammo etc. are only illegal if you dont obtain the proper licenses, pay the taxes etc. to own them,,in fact, the largest collection of fully functioning privately owned tanks in the country is in california, by one man.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> No shit.  You read every one of my replies.
> 
> Doesn't back your argument.  Destroys your argument.  You've supposed many times that gun advocates with their strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment suggest that people should be allowed to carry nukes.  Noir destroys your silly pretzel logic.  Do you even know who he is?  Who he works for?  If you did, you would totally reword your reply.
> 
> And "the exact same thing" can NOT be argued about 100 round mags.  A 100 round mag doesn't kill the person pulling the trigger.  A hand operated nuke does.  See how that's different?
> 
> Noir is 100% in favor of civilians owning 100 round mags.  Enjoy your fail.


Nukes can be set off with timers and not kill the terrorist, right?

Your video destroys your own argument and the fact that you can't see that it says some weapons are just to dangerous to own is on you, not me.
Common sense tells us that civilians should not be able to own nukes, land mines, howitzers* or  other military weapons.*
The Constitution is not a suicide pact and your video is talking about common sense.

----------


## Rutabaga

> LOL...If it was that easy don't you think AQ/ISIS would have them already?


they have been trying to obtain one or two for quite a while...they dont have the right connections..[see the soviets think the're as crazy as everyone else]..then you need the delivery system...perhaps you are not aware how difficult it is...i suggest you go online and do a painstaking seach for "black market nuclear weapons for sale"..

you can leave your contact info. and i bet someone will get back to you...

----------


## Victory

> Nukes can be set off with timers and not kill the terrorist, right?
> 
> Your video destroys your own argument and the fact that you can't see that it says some weapons are just to dangerous to own is on you, not me.
> Common sense tells us that civilians should not be able to own nukes, land mines, howitzers* or  other military weapons.*
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact and your video is talking about common sense.


Common sense should dictate that you don't need to create useless laws.  Outlawing personal ownership of nukes is a useless law.  No John Q Public is trying to buy one.  Using one for self protection is stupid since the user is the first one to die.  The video is making fun of people like you.

Civilians own fully operational tanks.  I just posted a video below.  You missed it because you don't watch videos (except this one of course).  Your loss.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Common sense should dictate that you don't need to create useless laws.  Outlawing personal ownership of nukes is a useless law.  No John Q Public is trying to buy one.  Using one for self protection is stupid since the user is the first one to die.  The video is making fun of people like you.
> 
> Civilians own fully operational tanks.  I just posted a video below.  You missed it because you don't watch videos (except this one of course).  Your loss.


Alright....this discussion can serve no further purpose when your argument is that people should be allowed to buy any weapon they want if they want it for any reason.

You and I don't want suitcase nukes but I'll bet that kid near Seattle last week would have loved to blow up his town before he killed himself...or that maniac in Canada...or the Columbine murderers...or.....you get the point.

*Our discussion is hereby ended.*

----------


## Rutabaga

> Alright....this discussion can serve no further purpose when your argument is that people should be allowed to buy any weapon they want if they want it for any reason.
> 
> *You and I don't want suitcase nukes but I'll bet that kid near Seattle last week would have loved to blow up his town before he killed himself...or that maniac in Canada...or the Columbine murderers...or.....you get the point.
> *
> *Our discussion is hereby ended.*


none of them had the right connections either...or probably if they did, the money, or if they had the connection, money probably not the knowledge to arm and detonate it..[its not a simple push button, or set a cookie timer]..

but the law prevented nothing..if the law prevented maniacs from carrying out their plans, then we wouldnt have any maniacs carrying out their plans...

----------


## Devil505

> none of them had the right connections either...or probably if they did, the money, or if they had the connection, money probably not the knowledge to arm and detonate it..[its not a simple push button, or set a cookie timer]..
> 
> but the law prevented nothing..if the law prevented maniacs from carrying out their plans, then we wouldnt have any maniacs carrying out their plans...


The NFA of 1935 prevented all of them from having access to machine guns and hand grenades and I hope you and Victory have a nice conversation between yourselves from here on.

Thank God folks who think like you guys are not in positions of power in this country.

----------


## Green Man

> Alright....this discussion can serve no further purpose when your argument is that people should be allowed to buy any weapon they want if they want it for any reason.


You don't seem to be able to understand that we have two levels of government here in the united states. The federal government was created by the states and given certain specific powers. These powers are written down in the constitution, and this list does not include the power to prevent the people of any state from having weapons. On the other hand, every state has full plenary police powers, and can outlaw the possession of nuclear, or any other, weapons.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Alright....this discussion can serve no further purpose when your argument is that people should be allowed to buy any weapon they want if they want it for any reason.
> 
> You and I don't want suitcase nukes but I'll bet that kid near Seattle last week would have loved to blow up his town before he killed himself...or that maniac in Canada...or the Columbine murderers...or.....you get the point.
> 
> *Our discussion is hereby ended.*


Perhaps we should pass a law banning personal ownership of photon torpedoes. . .just to be safe.

While we're at it we should pass a law banning personal ownership of ICBMs.  I mean if a 14 year old is gonna get a nuke it would only make sense he would want an ICBM to deliver it.

Next up, a bill designed to ban personal ownership of aircraft carriers and stealth bombers.

----------


## Devil505

> You don't seem to be able to understand that we have two levels of government here in the united states. The federal government was created by the states and given certain specific powers. These powers are written down in the constitution, and this list does not include the power to prevent the people of any state from having weapons. On the other hand, every state has full plenary police powers, and can outlaw the possession of nuclear, or any other, weapons.


You don't seem to understand that the Supremacy clause means what it says.
State laws and constitutions are *inferior* to those at the federal level.
You are simply wrong and why you continue to insist that 2 +2 =5 is beyond me?

----------


## Devil505

> Perhaps we should pass a law banning personal ownership of photon torpedoes. . .just to be safe.
> 
> While we're at it we should pass a law banning personal ownership of ICBMs.  I mean if a 14 year old is gonna get a nuke it would only make sense he would want an ICBM to deliver it.
> 
> Next up, a bill designed to ban personal ownership of aircraft carriers and stealth bombers.


Some people are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong and you are one of them.

----------


## Green Man

> You don't seem to understand that the Supremacy clause means what it says.
> State laws and constitutions are *inferior* to those at the federal level.
> You are simply wrong and why you continue to insist that 2 +2 =5 is beyond me?


The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution forbids the federal government from enacting laws that prevent people from having weapons, since that is not among its specifically listed powers. Yet this does not mean that states can't establish such laws, as the constitution contains no prohibition against them doing so.

I have no idea why you keep trotting out the supremacy clause, since it prohibits the types of federal laws you keep championing.

----------

nonsqtr (10-29-2014),Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nukes can be set off with timers and not kill the terrorist, right?
> 
> Your video destroys your own argument and the fact that you can't see that it says some weapons are just to dangerous to own is on you, not me.
> Common sense tells us that civilians should not be able to own nukes, land mines, howitzers* or  other military weapons.*
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact and your video is talking about common sense.


by the way,,just like you can own tanks, battleships, and other military weapons, you can add howitzers to the list..all perfectly legal for non-military civilians to own, including the ammo...

you just arn't having much luck with your thread eh?

try one about black crime rate..more people know about that...

----------


## Victory

> Some people are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong and you are one of them.


Meh.  Bullshit.  I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times.

What, you think we should ban personal nukes but not personal ICBMs?  What do you think your hypothetical 14 year old is going to do with a nuke but no delivery?

----------


## Green Man

> You don't seem to understand that the Supremacy clause means what it says.
> State laws and constitutions are *inferior* to those at the federal level.


State firearms laws are inferior to what law, specifically? And which of congress' enumerated powers allows it so make such a law?

----------


## nonsqtr

> The way We the people make laws in this country is via our freely-elected Congress.
> The way those laws are judged as to constitutionality is via our SCOTUS..... who's members are appointed by our freely elected President and confirmed by our freely elected Congress..
> 
> Break those laws at your own peril and by doing so you are also defying the will of your fellow citizens.
> 
> You are not required to agree with all those laws or even the system that makes them.....but you are required to obey them or face consequences.


Goddamit Devil, the *Supreme Fucking Morons* are required to obey the law too!

If they aren't doing it, then I ain't gonna do it either, and no amount of vacuous "authority" on your part is going to change that equation.

Sorry Devil, when the Supreme Idiots tell me that money is speech, they are *breaking the law*, violating their Oaths of Office, and destroying the document and the political system they've been sworn to uphold.

And I will not support such a thing, not in court, not on the internet, and not even in fear when my life is being threatened.

These people aren't "obeying" the law, they're *pulling the law out of their butts!!!*

If they want me to obey the law, then they're going to have to do their sworn duty too, and that means specifically to obey their sworn Oaths of Office and uphold the law exactly as it's written in the Constitution.

If they got a problem with the Constitution that's a different issue and we can talk about that separately, but until then I expect those fucking shit for brains Supreme fucking Fools to *speak English* and obey the law that's written *in English*.

I will not subscribe to a corrupt law, Devil.

*I do not consent to be governed that way.*

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> LOL...If it was that easy don't you think AQ/ISIS would have them already?


Someone would have to be crazy enough to sell it to them first.

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before a nuke goes off in a city.  Probably a ME or European one.  When that happens, there will be a sudden catharsis of our entire species.  What 9/11 did for the US, a nuke taking out a city will do for the planet. 

It will be spectacular and an amazing thing to witness.

----------


## Devil505

> Goddamit Devil, the *Supreme Fucking Morons* are required to obey the law too!
> 
> If they aren't doing it, then I ain't gonna do it either, and no amount of vacuous "authority" on your part is going to change that equation.
> 
> Sorry Devil, when the Supreme Idiots tell me that money is speech, they are *breaking the law*, violating their Oaths of Office, and destroying the document and the political system they've been sworn to uphold.
> 
> And I will not support such a thing, not in court, not on the internet, and not even in fear when my life is being threatened.
> 
> These people aren't "obeying" the law, they're *pulling the law out of their butts!!!*
> ...


Yawn....
Just tell it to the judge my friend.

----------


## Victory

> Yawn....
> Just tell it to the judge my friend.


Appeal to authority again.

It's interesting how you can assert your independence in all matters of opinion but then fold like a demure flower when it comes to legal matters.  It's like you hand your brain over to the SC and let them decide and speak for you.  It's as if you transfer your freedom of speech to them.  Sounds dangerous.

----------

Rutabaga (10-29-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The NFA of 1935 prevented all of them from having access to machine guns and hand grenades and I hope you and Victory have a nice conversation between yourselves from here on.
> 
> Thank God folks who think like you guys are not in positions of power in this country.


wrong again..i can own machine guns [full auto] hand grenades etc..

how many times do you need to be wrong before you give it up?

oh i know...you dont like it so it cant be true...

you have a serious mental problem.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yawn....
> Just tell it to the judge my friend.


Not interested.

----------


## Devil505

> wrong again..i can own machine guns [full auto] hand grenades etc..


Reread my post that you quoted. I said "Them"..not you.

Are *you* planning a massacre and then suicide?
Do you have a FFL?





> you have a serious mental problem.


You have a serious lack of debate skills problem that you try to hide behind insult...but it's obvious to all.

Go waste someone else's time.

----------


## Sled Dog

> This post really ends the discussion for me.
> 
> It is such obvious common sense that anyone who pretends not to understand it is simply not worth arguing with.


I don't recall anyone saying they don't understand it.

It's fucked, it's ridiculous, it's impossible to implement, but it's not complicated.

It's just wrong.

As for common sense, common sense says it's better to shoot back than to use your soft body to shield someone else from a maniac's bullets.




> The Far Right's argument is so weak that they have to pretend that those of us who support sensible gun control laws.....which happens to include most gun owners....are arguing that all guns are bad and that people shouldn't be able to own/bear them.
> That argument is total BS and they know it.


The AMERICAN'S argument is that the Second Amendment is for defense against tyranny, and YOU PEOPLE elect the tyrants and naturally YOU PEOPLE don't want your gods and masters shot.   Too bad you've never read the 29th Federalist Paper.   This argument is not about guns.

It's about liberty.

And because it's about individual freedom and self-determination neither you nor any of the other Rodent drone robots have the faintest clue what's really going on.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why can't you buy nukes?


Typical Rodent dodge.

Article I, Section 8, Part 11 of the Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that private citizens cannot own and operate combat vessels without permission.  The federal government also reserves to itself the authority to maintain a Navy (Part 13), and to raise and support Armies (Part 12), and keep troops (Article I, Section 10, Part 3).

The federal government reserves the weapons of WAR to itself.  The Second Amendment then reserved the weapons of the traditional infantry to the people, which is why the word "arms" was used.   Unlike today's modern fucktard liberals, the words in the Constitution aren't vague or uncertain.  People cannot "bear" a cannon, nor could they "bear" a large bomb (and though the founders didn't know it, the smallest nuclear warheads weigh approximately a classified number than no one man could "bear".)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Nope.
> 
> But I do not believe in the deity of the Supreme Court, either. They were not transformed into oracles by simply being nominated to their position.
> 
> The failing of the Constitution was that there was no check put on the power of the Supreme Court - such as a term and time limit, or a way for a supermajority of States to override obvious political and deluded rulings.
> 
> If you're interested in this, I'd suggest you read Mark Levin's _Men in Black_. He notes the follies, throughout history, of the Court; as well as its compromised and impaired members.


It wasn't a failing of the Constitution. Those who wrote and those who ratified the Constitution did not intend for the Court to have unlimited veto power over the law. The failure is in the Congress and States that, in the 200 years since the Marbury v Madison surprise attack on individual liberty, have done nothing to check the Courts that would restore balance to the government tripod.

You will note that nowhere in the Constitution is the power granted to the court to unilaterally discard law by simply claiming that law is "unconstitutional". 

Just take a look at the Miller decision of 1939. The final ruling declared that since a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon of use on the battlefield, it was not covered under the Second Amendment. Three things to note:

1) Sawed-off hotguns were VERY useful in World War One as trench sweeper, and thus the court's argument is what the general public calls "full of shit".

It also raises the very relevant point of what the rule of the damn judge is.   It's not up to the judge to decide what is and what is not a useful item of military equipment.   That's up to the military commanders, and thus is ultimately under the purview of the Executive Branch, not the guys in dresses on the Judiciary.

2) Semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are useful on the battlefield, and hence could not be regulated if Miller had any meaning, which it doesn't.

3) Miller established that if a weapon was useful in war, it was covered under the Second Amendment. That would mean, since nuclear weapons are useful in war, that @Devil505's nonsense about nukes is "full of shit".

----------


## Sled Dog

> States cannot violate the Constitution.


The federal government can't violate the Constitution.

Ergo, neither state nor fed can regulate gun sales, gun ownership, gun design, gun transport.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Can I own a submarine? Isn't a submarine strictly a military vessel?


I know someone that built his own submarine when he was a teenager.  My submarine experience says he built himself a death trap and I'm amazed that his father helped him launch it, but there it is.

It's a MUCH better submarine than the Patriot's Turtle in the Revolutionary war.   It would be fully capable of running out and affixing a mine to the hull of a blockading vessel.

----------


## Sled Dog

> tell me what stops them from doing so?
> 
> law?
> 
> LOLOLOLOLLOLLLLL!!!
> 
> you just as cute as a bugs ear!!


No nation owning nukes is willing to sell them to random strangers.

Since private individuals, no matter how wealthy, flatly do not have the resources to make their own fissionable materials, there will be no free market nuclear bomb exchange opening any time in the foreseeable future.

Since there is no seller for nukes, there are are no buyers (basic economics), and therefore no argument relying on the refutation of the Nuke Market has any validity.

----------


## Sled Dog

> none of them had the right connections either...or probably if they did, the money, or if they had the connection, money probably not the knowledge to arm and detonate it..[its not a simple push button, or set a cookie timer]..
> 
> but the law prevented nothing..if the law prevented maniacs from carrying out their plans, then we wouldnt have any maniacs carrying out their plans...


A Hiroshima fission cannon could be built and detonated with equipment available to the average terrorist IED builder.

Two problems:

Where oh where do they get the 150 kilograms of 98% pure U235? 

Where do they get the neutron source, the spark igniter if you will, that provides the necessary guaranteed first generation of neutrons to ensure the chain reaction grows quickly enough to ensure prompt criticality while the fissile bullet is still embedded in the fissile target, a period which lasts mere milliseconds before the critical geometry is shattered by the bullet's passage through the target?

THAT device is not complicated, and all the necessary physics for calculating the critical mass and geometry can be learned in any proper nuclear engineering masters program.   The biggest problem the physicists had in designing the cannon for the Hiroshima bomb was getting it small enough to fit on an airplane.   The designers were following a naval manual for cannon design that presumed that the crew firing it didn't want to die and that maybe we'd use it more than once.  Oops.  When it became a single shot item it lost weight rapidly.

But ain't NOBODY selling U-235. 

And don't blather about plutonium. Pu-240 has such a high reactivity that a mere cannon cannot compress the critical geometry sufficiently and the so-called "dirty bomb" scenario happens. That is why the Army tested their plutonium implosion device at Trinity before dropping one on Nagasaki. The calculation of the emplosion lenses and the quality control of the explosives is a very complicated matter indeed.

----------

curvy_goddess (11-02-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution forbids the federal government from enacting laws that prevent people from having weapons, since that is not among its specifically listed powers. Yet this does not mean that states can't establish such laws, as the constitution contains no prohibition against them doing so.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep trotting out the supremacy clause, since it prohibits the types of federal laws you keep championing.



Devil trots out the Supremacy Clause because the Rodent Manual tells him to. Understanding is not a requirement for obeying The Manual.

However, you are still wrong.




> *Article XIV
> *1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This means the states CANNOT violate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments. 

Ergo, the states do not have the popwer to prevent people from owning weapons, since immunity tp that is extended to the People from the Second Amendment itself.

----------

nonsqtr (10-30-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Meh. Bullshit. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times.
> 
> What, you think we should ban personal nukes but not personal ICBMs? What do you think your hypothetical 14 year old is going to do with a nuke but no delivery?


Not being able to own ICBM's would be a grave disappointment to some boys.  You ever see the movie Weird Science?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> with all due respect, tanks, live ammo etc. are only illegal if you dont obtain the proper licenses, pay the taxes etc. to own them,,in fact, the largest collection of fully functioning privately owned tanks in the country is in california, by one man.


Good point.  Thanks.

----------


## Devil505

> It wasn't a failing of the Constitution. Those who wrote and those who ratified the Constitution did not intend for the Court to have unlimited veto power over the law. The failure is in the Congress and States that, in the 200 years since the Marbury v Madison surprise attack on individual liberty, have done nothing to check the Courts that would restore balance to the government tripod.
> 
> You will note that nowhere in the Constitution is the power granted to the court to unilaterally discard law by simply claiming that law is "unconstitutional". 
> 
> Just take a look at the Miller decision of 1939. The final ruling declared that since a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon of use on the battlefield, it was not covered under the Second Amendment. Three things to note:
> 
> 1) Sawed-off hotguns were VERY useful in World War One as trench sweeper, and thus the court's argument is what the general public calls "full of shit".
> 
> It also raises the very relevant point of what the rule of the damn judge is.   It's not up to the judge to decide what is and what is not a useful item of military equipment.   That's up to the military commanders, and thus is ultimately under the purview of the Executive Branch, not the guys in dresses on the Judiciary.
> ...





> The federal government can't violate the Constitution.
> 
> Ergo, neither state nor fed can regulate gun sales, gun ownership, gun design, gun transport.


Translation:

----------


## Devil505

> No nation owning nukes is willing to sell them to random strangers.
> 
> Since private individuals, no matter how wealthy, flatly do not have the resources to make their own fissionable materials, there will be no free market nuclear bomb exchange opening any time in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Since there is no seller for nukes, there are are no buyers (basic economics), and therefore no argument relying on the refutation of the Nuke Market has any validity.


Thanks for making my argument!  :Thumbsup20: 

*For whatever the reason*, there are simply no nukes available to the public for insane people to blow up cities with before they commit suicide.
(The same should be true of hi cap magazines)

----------

Hansel (10-30-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Thanks for making my argument! 
> 
> *For whatever the reason*, there are simply no nukes available to the public for insane people to blow up cities with before they commit suicide.
> (The same should be true of hi cap magazines)


Heh.  Lemme hep ya:

Nukes do not equal high capacity magazines.  Not even close.

Would you deny high capacity magazines to the store owners in the 1992 L.A. riots?







That's okay.  I know you don't read my posts or watch my vids so I'm expecting your reply to rise to its usual level of erudition.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Heh.  Lemme hep ya:
> 
> Nukes do not equal high capacity magazines.  Not even close.
> 
> Would you deny high capacity magazines to the store owners in the 1992 L.A. riots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, the gun haters will tell you the Korean grocers didn't need guns since no one was trying to loot their stores!!

----------


## Victory

> Well, the gun haters will tell you the Korean grocers didn't need guns since no one was trying to loot their stores!!


I can't tell you how many times people, including Devil, have said about the first video, "Obviously, they didn't need high cap magazines!  They kept their stores safe with just shotguns," so I included the second video this time.  Guy on the roof with an automatic Uzi had a high cap magazine.  Note how the looters stay away in droves.

----------


## Graham Garner

I don’t understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.

----------


## Devil505

> Would you deny high capacity magazines to the store owners in the 1992 L.A. riots?


Absolutely...because they needed nothing more than shotguns..... that are available everywhere and pass the danger-to-society vs benefit test.
Hicap magazines fail that test and should be banned once again.

----------


## Victory

> Well, the gun haters will tell you the Korean grocers didn't need guns since no one was trying to loot their stores!!





> I can't tell you how many times people, including Devil, have said about the first video, "Obviously, they didn't need high cap magazines! * They kept their stores safe with just shotguns*," so I included the second video this time.  Guy on the roof with an automatic Uzi had a high cap magazine.  Note how the looters stay away in droves.


Did I lie?




> Absolutely...because _they needed nothing more than shotguns_..... that are available everywhere and pass the danger-to-society vs benefit test.
>  Hicap magazines fail that test and should be banned once again.


 @Dr. Felix Birdbiter

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Did I lie?
> 
> 
> 
>  @Dr. Felix Birdbiter



LOL LOL LOL

I just knew it was coming

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I dont understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.



Frankly,  it really doesn't matter if we do or not.  We are afforded the God Given Right to defend ourselves and that right is supposed to be protected by  the United States Constitution regardless of what bubbleheaded progressives may personally believe.  The argument here is not that we all MUST carry a weapon but that we CAN if we so choose.  

And as Al Capone is alleged to have once said "A man can accomplish more with a kind word and a gun then with just a kind word"

----------

nonsqtr (10-30-2014),Victory (10-30-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I don’t understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.


Look around you.  How many crazed lunatics, foreign and domestic, do we see shooting up crowds?

You can carry a gun or not.  I couldn't care less.

But YOU do not have the right to determine whether WE can carry or own firearms, any more than WE can ORDER YOU to do so.

That's liberalism versus conservatism in a nutshell.  A conservative lets others live as they like; but fights for choices people may want to make.

A LIBERAL...cannot BEAR to see other people choose what he would not; and wants to use LAW to FORCE HIS PREFERENCES on EVERYONE.

----------

Sled Dog (10-30-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law.  Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head.  The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law.  It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law.  Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head.  The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law.  It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.


No.

The Second Amendment SECURES that _The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms shall Not be Infringed._

It is sophist-shysters, working in concert with crypto-Marxists, who have subjected such a plain declaration to restrictions.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-30-2014)

----------


## Victory

> LOL LOL LOL
> 
> I just knew it was coming


Wow!  Check out the time stamps!  You couldn't correograph something like that better than how it actually happened.

----------


## Devil505

> Did I lie?
> 
> 
> 
>  @Dr. Felix Birdbiter





> LOL LOL LOL
> 
> I just knew it was coming


*Analogy:*
Victory asks: "How much is 2+2? "(and then whispers ..."Watch.....I'll bet Devil says four!")
Devil505 answers: Four
Victory proudly boasts: "See....I told you he'd say that!!"



LOL...yeah you guys are just to good at debating for me to deal with!!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Devil505

> A conservative lets others live as they like; but fights for choices people may want to make.


A conservative makes that statement, then claims he's for limited government and then tells a woman that the government should tell her she has to carry a rape pregnancy to full term the day after she's raped.

Yeah....no hypocrisy there, eh?

----------

nonsqtr (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> I dont understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?


99% of it is just anonymous keyboard hero talk.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> A conservative makes that statement, then claims he's for limited government and then tells a woman that the government should tell her she has to carry a rape pregnancy to full term the day after she's raped.
> 
> Yeah....no hypocrisy there, eh?


Yeah.  Defending the most innocent of human life.

How awful, that.

How many abortions are the result of "rape"?  A fraction of a percent.

How about we start cutting the junk off rapists?  THAT would cut the amount of conceptions through rape to nearly zero.  And it doesn't kill the innocent; it hurts the guilty.

----------


## Devil505

> Yeah.  Defending the most innocent of human life.
> 
> How awful, that.
> 
> How many abortions are the result of "rape"?  A fraction of a percent.
> 
> How about we start cutting the junk off rapists?  THAT would cut the amount of conceptions through rape to nearly zero.  And it doesn't kill the innocent; it hurts the guilty.


So you claim you want smaller/less-intrusive government and more liberty but you then want that government in our bedrooms to tell a rape victim she must carry the rapist's zygote to full term?

You see no hypocrisy there?



Edit: This is a zygote





This is a baby:




BTW.....I'll give you the last word and then I'm back on topic...
Do firearms empower people?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So you claim you want smaller/less-intrusive government and more liberty but you then want that government in our bedrooms to tell a rape victim she must carry the rapist's zygote to full term?
> 
> You see no hypocrisy there?



How many abortions are the result of rape?  Incest?  Ever hear of a D&C?  Happened all the time before Roe V Wade and would happen again if it were overturned.

I realize we will never agree on this for the simple reason you don't believe in the sanctity of life.  One argument for pro slavery was that it was property and therefore the owner had the right to do whatever he wanted and was entitled to have his property returned if it ran away.  No one would accept that argument today but you are more than willing to claim that the human life the women is carrying in her womb is nothing more than property to be destroyed at will.  I claim it is not property but another human being.

And don't give me that shit about not caring about them after they are born, that is a non sequiter.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> *Analogy:*
> Victory asks: "How much is 2+2? "(and then whispers ..."Watch.....I'll bet Devil says four!")
> Devil505 answers: Four
> Victory proudly boasts: "See....I told you he'd say that!!"
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...yeah you guys are just to good at debating for me to deal with!!



No, it just means you are an extremely predictable little DNC mouthpiece.

----------

Sled Dog (10-30-2014)

----------


## Victory

> No, it just means you are an extremely predictable little DNC mouthpiece.


Heh.  He is indeed as predictable as the outcome of 2+2.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

As far as going back on topic is concerned we have over 700 post on the topic.  I think we have established beyond a doubt that being armed is (A) empowering to the person who is armed and (B) is our right under the Constitution and the Natural Laws of the Universe.

Don't know that we need to say much more.

----------


## Victory

> Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law.  Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head.  The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law.  It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.


Where do you get this interpretation?

----------


## Victory

> I dont understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.


Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, of people who own guns that they would seek to disarm them?  I certainly hope not.

You strike me as the worst kind of gun owner:  I got mine, now screw the rest of you!




> Some people like to ask, "So. . .what you're saying is basically "The answer to the gun violence in the inner city is more guns?""  Well, when the guns are already outlawed in the city and there's three dudes kicking in your door with guns. . .yes.

----------


## Victory

> A conservative makes that statement, then claims he's for limited government and then tells a woman that the government should tell her she has to carry a rape pregnancy to full term the day after she's raped.


Who says that?

----------


## Victory

> The_ NFA of 1935 prevented all of them from having access to machine guns_ and hand grenades and I hope you and Victory have a nice conversation between yourselves from here on.
> 
> Thank God folks who think like you guys are not in positions of power in this country.


Again I'd like to point out the North Hollywood Shoot Out.  The NFA of 1935 didn't do a damn thing to prevent the attackers from obtaining the exact weapons called out in the NFA of 1935.

----------


## Devil505

> Who says that?


I'm back on topic and will just say that ..yes, firearms are tools whose main purpose is to *enable* people to kill safely from a distance.
Thus they are very useful to hunt game, help feed families provide for sporting games and assist in self-defense.

The fact that they are *dangerous* tools makes it logical THAT SOCIETY PUTS SOME REGULATIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION AND USE.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS)

----------


## Hansel

> Who says that?


I think he is referring to the conservative pov on the abortion issue.

----------


## Devil505

> Again I'd like to point out the North Hollywood Shoot Out.  The NFA of 1935 didn't do a damn thing to prevent the attackers from obtaining the exact weapons called out in the NFA of 1935.


Not a single person was killed in that shootout but the 2 bad guys who were out for money.
Compare that to Aurora,Columbine, Sandy Hill, etc. where the crazy perps were out to kill people and die themselves.

So ends my part in our conversation because we keep making the same points...over and over.

----------


## Hansel

> I'm back on topic and will just say that ..yes, firearms are tools whose main purpose is to *enable* people to kill safely from a distance.
> Thus they are very useful to hunt game, help feed families provide for sporting games and assist in self-defense.
> 
> The fact that they are *dangerous* tools makes it logical THAT SOCIETY PUTS SOME REGULATIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION AND USE.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS)


One could also say the same thing about dynamite. It is a useful tool but its danger warrants controls on its use and possession.

----------

Devil505 (10-30-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Not a single person was killed in that shootout but the 2 bad guys who were out for money.
> Compare that to Aurora,Columbine, Sandy Hill, etc. where the crazy perps were out to kill people and die themselves.
> 
> So ends my part in our conversation because we keep making the same points...over and over.


It is like talking to a brick wall.    :Headbang:

----------

Devil505 (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> One could also say the same thing about dynamite. It is a useful tool but its danger warrants controls on its use and possession.


True but even more so with firearms because, unlike dynamite,  their real basic use is to kill living things.
That is simply not debatable.

Most tools we use only kill incidentally while firearms have that as their raison d'être.

*This is not an argument against gun ownership* because some killing is justified.....ie for food, self-defense, protection of family etc. and there are legitimate sports that use firearms for things other than killing.
(but let's be honest here...even target practice  is just practice to be able to hit your target and kill more effectively.)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Not a single person was killed in that shootout but the 2 bad guys who were out for money.
> Compare that to Aurora,Columbine, Sandy Hill, etc. where the crazy perps were out to kill people and die themselves.
> 
> So ends my part in our conversation because we keep making the same points...over and over.


The Columbine jackasses also used BOMBS.

Homemade explosives/IEDs are illegal and always have been.

Did that stop them?

Aurora:  Interestingly, the shooter chose a theater where the owners overtly banned concealed-carry for patrons.  Other theaters did not.  The _scheissekopf_ picked the theater where the patrons would be less likely to be armed and shoot back.

Hardly a success story in how laws stop the lawless from abusing weapons.

----------


## Victory

> OK...I watched your video and he makes absolute sense *and backs my argument!*
> The reason why civilians should not own nukes or other military weapons is that they are just to dangerous and they lose the danger vs benefit test.
> 
> Just as your video argues, the exact same thing can be argued about civilians bringing guns with *100 round drum magazines* into a movie theater and killing scores of people with it!
> 
> Secondly, many on your side argue the the 2nd Amendment sets no limitation on any arms...... so where does it say some are to dangerous for civilians to own in the Constitution?....It doesn't...Common-sense tells us all we need to know!


And here is what he says about high capacity magazines.  




Once again, enjoy your fail!

----------


## Victory

> I think he is referring to the conservative pov on the abortion issue.


What conservative has said that?

----------


## Devil505

> Aurora:  Interestingly, the shooter chose a theater where the owners overtly banned concealed-carry for patrons.  Other theaters did not.  The _scheissekopf_ picked the theater where the patrons would be less likely to be armed and shoot back.


LOL...yeah.....what could possibly go wrong in a dark theater with 100's of panicked people firing indiscriminately into the crowd?!?!  :Dontknow: 


Is that you Archie?

----------


## Victory

> Not a single person was killed in that shootout but the 2 bad guys who were out for money.


You said the NFA of 1935 prevented "all of them" from having machine guns.

Did the NFA of 1935 or did it NOT prevent the two bad guys from having machine guns?

----------


## Victory

> LOL...yeah.....what could possible go wrong in a dark theater with 100's of panicked people firing indiscriminately into the crowd?!?! lol
> 
> 
> Is that you Archie?


Ah yes.  The wisdom of Hollywood!




> Some people like to ask, "So. . .what you're saying is basically "The answer to the gun violence in the inner city is more guns?""  Well, when the guns are already outlawed in the city and there's three dudes kicking in your door with guns. . .yes.

----------


## Devil505

> You said the NFA of 1935 prevented "all of them" from having machine guns.
> 
> Did the NFA of 1935 or did it NOT prevent the two bad guys from having machine guns?


OK..Archie....you've convinced me!

Pass out Uzi's and grenades in all schools starting in nursery school!
Happy now?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> LOL...yeah.....what could possibly go wrong in a dark theater with 100's of panicked people firing indiscriminately into the crowd?!?!


_Reducto ad absurdum_.

You surely are familiar with the required tests and qualifications a person has to complete to be issued a concealed-carry permit.  You surely are, because LIBERALS DEMAND THEM.

Normal gun owners, unlike liberals, gangbangers, retards, and other Democrat constituents...normal gun owners have common sense.  They don't shoot wildly into the ceiling when the McDonalds is out of McNuggets.  

They KNOW what IS going to happen if they BRANDISH that weapon.  It automatically upps the ante - someone's going to jail or going to spend considerable time with police, just for their having pulled out their weapon.

EVERY time a permitted CC bearer has been in one of these situations, LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED.  And at NO time has a permitted CC bearer shot up a street in tune with Snoop Doggy Dog's rapping.

Law-abiding citizens with guns are not the source of danger.  Crazed people who belong in jail or in nuthouses but are not, thanks to liberals, are the danger.

Persons on the scene with firearms are the SOLUTION and the LIFESAVERS.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I dont understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.


Fearful? Paranoid?

What planet are you living on, Graham?

The reality in this world is: *the first hungry person who comes along will try to steal your food.*

'Kay? That's reality.

So, if you happen to have plenty of extra food lying around, maybe it's not a problem for you.

But if you're like me and you spend the whole goddamn fall and spring planting and working the soil (in spite of life-threatening medical conditions) just so you and your family can have a few peppers and potatoes for the wintertime, and then someone comes along and steals your food, that means *I'm left with nothing* and my wife and kids starve.

Is that what you want Graham? You want us to starve just because some shit-for-brains morons thinks he's hungrier than our children?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law.  Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head.  The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law.  It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.


Once again, Graham: my rights *are not "subject" to any damn thing*, least of all your shit-for-brains *corrupt* law.

The purpose of your law is supposed to be to *protect my rights*, and to the extent it fails to do that is the extent it's either going to be ignored or actively disobeyed.

My rights are not "subject" to your law, Graham, and never will be.

If *your* "law" can not protect my Rights, then it is my God-given right *to dissolve our Constitution and construct another one that's more to my liking.*

Don't you know anything, Mr. Lawyer?

----------


## nonsqtr

> A conservative makes that statement, then claims he's for limited government and then tells a woman that the government should tell her she has to carry a rape pregnancy to full term the day after she's raped.
> 
> Yeah....no hypocrisy there, eh?


Good point. Let's make a different thread out of it, though. I'll be happy to discuss this one too, if you wish.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

> 99% of it is just anonymous keyboard hero talk.


As long as thing are normal in political-land, yeah.

The minute the shit hits the fan though, we get to see who's a man and who's just a jellyfish.

----------


## Devil505

> _Reducto ad absurdum_.
> 
> You surely are familiar with the required tests and qualifications a person has to complete to be issued a concealed-carry permit.  You surely are, because LIBERALS DEMAND THEM.
> 
> Normal gun owners, unlike liberals, gangbangers, retards, and other Democrat constituents...normal gun owners have common sense.  They don't shoot wildly into the ceiling when the McDonalds is out of McNuggets.  
> 
> They KNOW what IS going to happen if they BRANDISH that weapon.  It automatically upps the ante - someone's going to jail or going to spend considerable time with police, just for their having pulled out their weapon.
> 
> EVERY time a permitted CC bearer has been in one of these situations, LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED.  And at NO time has a permitted CC bearer shot up a street in tune with Snoop Doggy Dog's rapping.
> ...


ROFL....What training is required of concealed carry license holders? (maybe a 2 hour course on how to load and aim a pistol...usualy without having to fire a single round?!?
Trained SWAT teams would find a dark movie theater with 100's of panicked people running and a shooter with a 100 round drum magazine an almost impossible venue to clear without many innocent people dying.

You have no clue what you're saying!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Again I'd like to point out the North Hollywood Shoot Out.  The NFA of 1935 didn't do a damn thing to prevent the attackers from obtaining the exact weapons called out in the NFA of 1935.


 :Smile: 

When that happened, I was living literally right next door to the B&B Guns store where the cops ran to get more weapons.

I'm famous, you can read about me on the internet. I'm the guy who was playing the loud music when everyone got there.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'm back on topic and will just say that ..yes, firearms are tools whose main purpose is to *enable* people to kill safely from a distance.
> Thus they are very useful to hunt game, help feed families provide for sporting games and assist in self-defense.
> 
> The fact that they are *dangerous* tools makes it logical THAT SOCIETY PUTS SOME REGULATIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION AND USE.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS)


"Society" does not do that, Devil. In fact, that's exactly the problem - society is never given a chance to vote on it, we end up with no say in the matter.

What actually happens here, is that 535 elected and *corrupt* weasels make the decision, and most of them are representing someone other than their constituents because they've been bribed and bought off by the special interests.

Why don't you find some cases for me where We the People have actually voted to restrict our own weaponry. Can you come with any examples for that?

----------


## nonsqtr

> It is like talking to a brick wall.


That is true.

My rights are a brick wall.

Try to mitigate them, and you'll encounter..... a brick wall.

 :Headbang:

----------


## Victory

> OK..Archie....you've convinced me!
> 
> Pass out Uzi's and grenades in all schools starting in nursery school!
> Happy now?


You concede.  I accept.

----------

Devil505 (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Why don't you find some cases for me where We the People have actually voted to restrict our own weaponry. Can you come with any examples for that?


I don't know of any votes....but here's a question for you:
How do you think 100 responsible gun owners would respond to the question: should citizens be able to walk into a gun shop and buy hand grenades, mortars and fully automatic weapons? (I'm guessing most if not all would say *No*)

----------


## Victory

> I don't know of any votes....but here's a question for you:
> How do you think 100 responsible gun owners would respond to the question: should citizens be able to walk into a gun shop and buy hand grenades, mortars and fully automatic weapons? (I'm guessing most if not all would say *No*)


Why would you put an issue like this up to "the citizens?"  Who cares what their opinion is on the matter?  They're irrelevant.  Just like your opinion about high cap magazines is irrelevant.  

If 330 million Americans think I shouldn't have high cap magazines, guess what?  Their opinion is STILL irrelevant!  Do you understand the term "unalienable rights?"  Do you see how statistics, and votes, and public opinion polls don't have a damn thing to do with unalienable rights?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> ROFL....What training is required of concealed carry license holders? (maybe a 2 hour course on how to load and aim a pistol...usualy without having to fire a single round?!?
> Trained SWAT teams would find a dark movie theater with 100's of panicked people running and a shooter with a 100 round drum magazine an almost impossible venue to clear without many innocent people dying.
> 
> You have no clue what you're saying!


Of course I don't.

Yet it's YOU who does not know what's taught in those classes.

And it's YOU who will not recognize that permitted CC owners, who purchased their firearms legally...are among the most law-abiding groups.  And it's YOU who pretends not to know that YOU liberals DENY CC permits to felons, grey-area felons, anyone who doesn't come back on a background check squeaky clean.

You do not acknowledge this because it doesn't fit your narrative.  You don't want facts; you want to TWIST realities.

From Norman Lear to you; that's all liberals do.  Twist reality; which is another term for LYING.

----------


## Devil505

> Why would you put an issue like this up to "the citizens?"  Who cares what their opinion is on the matter?  They're irrelevant.  Just like your opinion about high cap magazines is irrelevant.  
> 
> If 330 million Americans think I shouldn't have high cap magazines, guess what?  Their opinion is STILL irrelevant!  Do you understand the term "unalienable rights?"  Do you see how statistics, and votes, and public opinion polls don't have a damn thing to do with unalienable rights?


lol

----------


## Coolwalker

*Come in to my house uninvited. I dare you!*

----------


## Devil505

> Of course I don't.
> 
> Yet it's YOU who does not know what's taught in those classes.


I actually do know what's taught in those classes because about 10 years ago I accidentally let my Mass. state CC license expire and had to take a proscribed 2-3 hour class to get it renewed....along with new applicants. It was a joke and done in the basement of a cop's house!

In 1974 I underwent the DEA's Basic Agent training class and we had extensive firearms training.....including a program called "Stress and Decision Shooting" in a course they still use called "Hogan's Alley." 

I've posted this b4 but will again because only when stress is applied can you really learn about shooting when lives are at stake:



_I learned to fire rifles when I was a kid with a 22 cal rifle, shooting at targets while laying prone on an old, dirty mattress
I had never fired a handgun until I went through the DEA Basic Agent course in the spring of 1974. At that time, the Justice Dept trained agents on & issued 38cal Police Special revolvers. Our firearms instructor was an incredible shot who had been a State Dept. Special Agent whose duty was to protect ambassadors, etc.
We were trained to fire the Combat Course, which consisted of left & right hand barricade firing positions, point-shoulder position & a bunch of other positions, but the main thing they wanted us to learn was to draw our weapons quickly & fire accurately from the waist as FBI statistics proved that most law enforcement involved shootings took place very quickly & at very close range.
While accuracy was obviously very important, judgment (as to when to shoot & when not too) is the most important thing for anyone with a firearm to master. To that end, the Justice Dept trains all its agents to keep their trigger finger out of the trigger housing until they have made the decision to use deadly force......Keeping your finger off the trigger gives you that extra split-second to decide if you need to shoot, & prevents accidental discharges.
Part of our training ( & Justice still uses it) was in "Hogan's Alley." Hogan's Alley is now a very realistic, "Anytown USA" storefront community at Quantico VA Marine Base (Now home to FBI & DEA academies) where agent trainees are put through very realistic shoot/Don't shoot scenarios.http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/training/hogans-alley
When I went through basic agent training, we had no such fun sites! Our training was done in an old converted bank building in NW Washington with a gym (for PT) on the first floor & firing ranges on the 2nd & 3rd floors. Our "Hogan's Alley" consisted of the following:
On the day we went through Hogan's Alley training, all of us trainees assembled in the first floor gym, with unloaded weapons but wearing our blue coveralls that we always wore for firearms training to keep our clothes clean.
The instructors waited upstairs at the 2nd floor range. When they yelled your name (down the stairs) each trainee had to sling two 20lb weight belts over their shoulders, do 20 quick push-ups & then start to run up the stairs where you had been instructed to stop at the 2nd floor firing range. As you were bolting up the stairs, the instructors were yelling & throwing ash can covers & things down at you! As you made the 2nd floor landing, (while still being yelled at, etc) most of the instructors were pointing up the stairs & yelling for you to keep going. (we had been instructed to go to the 2nd floor range so I stopped & refused to run up to the 3rd floor...,.That was correct in that they just wanted to see if you would get flustered & not follow your instructions to stop at the 2nd floor range. Trust me, we had a number of trainees that did keep running up to the 3rd floor) As each trainee finished the exercise, he would join the instructors on the stairs in yelling & razzing the next trainee! (what a blast!) I'll never forget one trainee...from Hawaii I think.....who was running up the stairs & had a wild, crazed look in his eyes as he approached the 2nd floor landing. Just to be a wise guy I pointed to an open window & yelled for him to jump!! He scared the hell out of a bunch of us by trying to do just that!! (we had to grab him & steer him away from the window!)
It's hard to put yourself in the mindset of that exercise but it was very stressful! (Your livelihood depended on your passing the course & we lost almost 1/2 of the trainees that started the course through being washed out)
(side note: DEA had a deliberately dramatic way of washing a trainee out of the course.....We all had name plates & our books etc on our desks in the classroom. When we all took our lunch break & returned to class.....one desk would be vacant...No nameplate, no books...just gone! You couldn't ask any questions & when we got back to our hotel (they had us all stay at the Ramada Inn, NW Washington where we all had a roommate) the trainee's stuff was just gone (as if he had never existed) & his roommate now had a private room!
Sorry this is dragging but I'm having fun reminiscing.
Anyway, back to Hogan's Alley:
When you entered the 2nd floor firing range, the lead instructor handed you twelve 38cal rounds (six to load in the pistol & six for your pocket) as you were loading your weapon he explained what the "problem" was in the actual firing range (through a door) He said there are 3 hostages being held by an unknown number of bad guys. Your job was to kill the bad guys & free the hostages. When you entered the actual range, you were in complete darkness. The light had been turned off & you had to feel your way to firing station 1. The lead instructor's voice yelled out: "Are you ready?" When you yelled yes... the lights were suddenly thrown on & all hell broke loose! Instructors were screaming...:"shoot:"....Don't shoot" & swearing & throwing ash can covers at you! You noticed that the gate had been removed on firing point 1 allowing full access (for the first time) to the whole area downrange. There were paper (human shaped & painted) targets scattered about & immediately to your left was a bad guy with a shotgun so you spun around & shot him. (later you found out that there was a mother, holding a baby target a few feet behind the bad guy target so that your rounds went through the bad guy but then killed the mother & baby!)
There were a few other bad guys targets close by that you killed pretty easily & then, after you had fired six rounds (& your revolver was empty) the lights snapped off again. I had seen a bad guy target on the far right, downrange, so I made use of the darkness to scramble to the right while I was reloading in the dark. When the lights snapped back on (probably about 15 seconds) I immediately snapped off 2 rounds into the bad guy target . Suddenly a target started moving (on rails overhead) & as it got closer I could see it had a gun in its right hand aimed right at me! I snapped off 2 more rounds into him & as the target got closer I could see that in it's left hand (near its waist) it was holding a small but unmistakable DEA badge!! I had just killed a DEA agent!!
Those of us trainees that had killed our fellow "agent" (& that was almost everyone in the class) had to spend the afternoon writing letters to DEA headquarters, explaining the shooting & writing letters to the wife & kids of the "agent" we had killed. The intention of Hogan's Alley was/is not to turn basic agents into a group of professional hostage saving commandos but rather to give you a realistic experience & realization as to what your unprofessional actions could result in. Most of us, in a few short moments, had managed to kill an innocent young mother, her baby & gunned down a fellow DEA agent!
It was a hard lesson but one that I'll never forget!

The moral we all learned that day, & one I think anyone owning a weapon needs to learn is....Keep your finger out of the trigger housing until you are sure & always be aware of your surroundings._

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...t=hogans+alley

----------


## JustPassinThru

Law enforcement is an entirely different matter.

Law enforcement officers are expected to SHOOT perps.

CC permit holders are expected to know how to carry, load, and store their arms safely - and the legal obligations they have should someone be injured.

I haven't had the course; but I don't need to take it to know they are NOT training permitholders to take action as snipers.  Nor do CC permitholders have legal support, as cops do, should there be a shooting.

----------


## Devil505

> Law enforcement is an entirely different matter.
> 
> Law enforcement officers are expected to SHOOT perps.
> 
> CC permit holders are expected to know how to carry, load, and store their arms safely - and the legal obligations they have should someone be injured.
> 
> I haven't had the course; but I don't need to take it to know they are NOT training permitholders to take action as snipers.  Nor do CC permitholders have legal support, as cops do, should there be a shooting.


Getting a CC permit is ridiculously easy in most localities...but just having a weapon gives one a false sense of security in that you really need tactical training in a stressful situation to be safe yourself and not a danger to others.
Civilians have accès to many places where you can get such training at fairly reasonable rates and it's an absolute must if you plan on carrying a firearm!
(contact your local PD and they can advise you of facilities where you can be trained)

IMO...the license and the firearm are useless without such training!

----------


## JustPassinThru

Forgive me that I don't take your word for it.

Liberal political agitators are not known to be in tight with Truth.

----------


## Devil505

> Forgive me that I don't take your word for it.
> 
> Liberal political agitators are not known to be in tight with Truth.


LOL.....Take my word for what...that you should get training if you're going to carry a gun?

OK...you're just to paranoid to chat with...cya

----------


## JustPassinThru

> LOL.....Take my word for what...that you should get training if you're going to carry a gun?
> 
> OK...you're just to paranoid to chat with...cya


I thought your argument was that people cannot be trusted with guns.

They should all arm up with cellular phones, and maybe whistles...so, when the bad guys who don't CARE about laws, start shooting up the movie theater, they can call 9 1 1.  After all...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

----------


## Devil505

> I thought your argument was that people cannot be trusted with guns.
> 
> They should all arm up with cellular phones, and maybe whistles...so, when the bad guys who don't CARE about laws, start shooting up the movie theater, they can call 9 1 1.  After all...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.


I have always supported citizens having guns for self-defense purposes.
What I don't support is civilians owning military weapons.
Got it?

If you're just spoiling for a fight...find someone else.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I have always supported citizens having guns for self-defense purposes.
> What I don't support is civilians owning* military weapons.*
> Got it?
> 
> If you're just spoiling for a fight...find someone else.


Military weapons being defined by you as having over 10 rounds in a magazine.

If the anti-gun mob ever made that happen, then they'll start pushing of 5 rounds as maximum and, eventually, single shot.

----------

Invayne (11-02-2014),Sled Dog (10-30-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Which takes us right back to your duck-and-weave.

What is a "military weapon"?  Define it, in terms of specifics.  Calibre; magazine; rounds fired.

Is a shotgun a military weapon?  Historically it IS.  Even now, Navy arsenals have pump shotguns in them.

Is a blunderbus?  Is a Colt revolver?  Is a Glock semi-automatic pistol?

What is NOT a military weapon?  A "zip gun" made of light tubing and powder from a firecracker?  Those are what ghetto kids used to shoot unarmed people when they couldn't get anything.  So, THOSE are OKAY.  Right?

----------


## squidward

> I have always supported citizens having guns for self-defense purposes.
> What I don't support is civilians owning military weapons.
> Got it?


like flame throwers and shoulder fired rockets ?

----------


## Devil505

> like flame throwers and shoulder fired rockets ?






> Which takes us right back to your duck-and-weave.
> 
> What is a "military weapon"? Define it, in terms of specifics. Calibre; magazine; rounds fired.
> 
> Is a shotgun a military weapon? Historically it IS. Even now, Navy arsenals have pump shotguns in them.
> 
> Is a blunderbus? Is a Colt revolver? Is a Glock semi-automatic pistol?
> 
> What is NOT a military weapon? A "zip gun" made of light tubing and powder from a firecracker? Those are what ghetto kids used to shoot unarmed people when they couldn't get anything. So, THOSE are OKAY. Right?



Yawn:



> *That's an opinion question up to us collectively to thrash out in Congress.**
> My opinion would include for starters: Land mines, fully automatic firearms, grenades, mortars, tanks, high capacity magazines, etc*





My* opinion* is that any semi-auto of *any caliber* that has a magazine limited to 10 rounds* is not* a military weapon for civilian sale purposes and should be available to licensed adults.
Shotguns are not military weapons in my opinion, unless they are fully automatic...like this one:






Flame throwers and shoulder fired rockets are military weapons and should not be available to the public.

Glad to answer your questions but if you guys are looking for a pissing match....keep looking!


Edit: When I say military weapon I mean for legal sale purposes, not actual military use.
(i.e. anything we (Congress) classifies as a strictly military weapon should not be for sale in gun stores)

----------


## JustPassinThru

So then...Congress has the right to decide which firearms were included in "_The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..._"

The government has the right to decide which limits are on government.

Does anyone not thing this is gonna end badly?  Like, the way Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, Venezuela all ended up?

That would be this guy's wish.  He chose his name well; because he is clearly promoting evil.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-30-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> So then...Congress has the right to decide which firearms were included in "_The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms..._"
> The government has the right to decide which limits are on government.


Subject to SCOTUS review of course.
Has been since 1803 and always will be that way.... sans an amendment or revolution. (you'd be no help in a revolution though because you don't even know which end of the gun the little pointy things come out of) lol






> That would be this guy's wish.  He chose his name well; because he is clearly promoting evil.


Maybe you should take a few courses and learn how to actually shoot something... besides your mouth of course. (is that your Mom I hear....calling you to clean your room?)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Subject to SCOTUS review of course.
> Has been since 1803 and always will be that way.... sans an amendment.


Yup.  The government can decide what the government's limits are.

You really have no concept of the purpose of a Constitution, do you.

And if the sophist Court decides "..._shall Not Be Infringed_" means anything other than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; NO LIMITATIONS...no Constitutional Amendment is going to solve that.

Only twelve Impeachments will solve it.







> Maybe you should take a few courses and learn how to actually shoot something... besides your mouth of course. (is that your Mom I hear....calling you to clean your room?)


 :Finger: 
 :Jackoff: 
 :Douchebag: 
 :Asshole:

----------


## Devil505

> 


Nothing I respect less in this world than a .......

*..............................Chickenhawk.........  ........................*

----------


## JustPassinThru

Sure.

You've called me a name.

Now, prove it.

----------


## Devil505

> Sure.
> 
> You've called me a name.
> 
> Now, prove it.


Just read some of your other posts and you've got enough problems.
I see you like annoying people because you're hurting so I'll just say so long.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Thanks for making my argument!


Your foolish argument was that the Second Amendment is not unlimited because in no sane universe would private citizens be allowed to buy their own nukes.

My response was that your argument was plain stupid because no government is going to ban the personal ownership of nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are not attainable by any private citizen, there being no market for them.




> *For whatever the reason*, there are simply no nukes available to the public for insane people to blow up cities with before they commit suicide.
> (The same should be true of hi cap magazines)


No.

There's a HUGE fucking difference between claiming the Second Amendment is "limited" because people can't purchase nuclear weapons because the government forbids the purchase of something available for purchase, and recognizing that the argument is stupid because neither nuclear weapons nor Saturn's rings are offered for purchase, and won't be.

The difference is that your argument is empty.

Meanwhile, since you ignored the post, I've already pointed out where in the CONSTITUTION the limits on the Second Amendment are indicated.  Since you have no familiarity with the Constitution and since you have no desire to be informed, you don't generally read my posts.

Your loss.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Absolutely...because they needed nothing more than shotguns..... that are available everywhere and pass the danger-to-society vs benefit test.
> Hicap magazines fail that test and should be banned once again.


The BIGGEST "danger to society" is the stripping of the people of their high capacity military rifles, since the existence of those weapons in the hand of the people has been the single greatest bulwark against tyranny the world has ever seen.

Since your masters refuse to allow you to consider the reality of the above, you're stuck with failing your own "benefit to society" test.

----------


## Victory

> I'm back on topic and will just say that ..yes, firearms are tools whose main purpose is to *enable* people to kill safely from a distance.
> Thus they are very useful to hunt game, help feed families provide for sporting games and assist in self-defense.
> 
> The fact that they are *dangerous* tools makes it logical THAT SOCIETY PUTS SOME REGULATIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION AND USE.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS)


Oh so NOW you're back on topic.  Why is that?  Did your dead end die?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law. Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head. The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law. It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.



Hmm...."the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed".

Any law regulating the carrying of firearms is an unconstitutional law.

Basic English wss something they skipped when you attended the Karl Marx elementary school and the Joseph Goebbels High School, wasn't it?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Hmm...."the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> Any law regulating the carrying of firearms is an unconstitutional law.
> 
> Basic English wss something they skipped when you attended the Karl Marx elementary school and the Joseph Goebbels High School, wasn't it?


If we can believe him, he was an attorney.

A pettifogger.  Someone who made his LIVING muddling the difference between black and white.

A sophist, in other words.

His whole livelihood and his whole life was spent arguing the absurd...whether it was Constitutional principles, or whether it was how Tyrone, with gunpowder residue on his hands, really didn't pull the trigger that killed the young woman who had just been raped...with Tyrone's DNA.

It's a good living, I guess...prostituting your soul and integrity...

----------


## Sled Dog

> A conservative makes that statement, then claims he's for limited government and then tells a woman that the government should tell her she has to carry a rape pregnancy to full term the day after she's raped.
> 
> Yeah....no hypocrisy there, eh?


No. 

No hypocrisy there at all.

Why should a mother murder her own baby, when that child hadn't even been conceived when someone else attacked her?

Let me guess, you have absolutely NO IDEA what that Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder means, do you?

Also, was the woman raped because you fascists prevented her from exercising her right to carry a gun?

Then it's your fault she was attacked.

Was the rape one of those bogus events where the male failed to record on audio her verbal "yes" prior to every thrust?

Then she's just a stupid slut.

Regarless of all that, explain how it's the baby's fault.

Explain how an innocent child can be murdered for the crime of rape when it didn't exist when the crime occured, and explain how that child can be executed when the penalty for rape is a short stretch in the local state funded country club?

----------


## Sled Dog

> So you claim you want smaller/less-intrusive government and more liberty but you then want that government in our bedrooms to tell a rape victim she must carry the rapist's zygote to full term?


Yes, YOUR government would tell them "in their bedrooms".

A real government would simply throw baby-killing quacks in prison for long periods of time.

You've clearly spent too much time picking up other people's drugs.  You're addicted to empty phrases you to which you attach phrases you feel are emotionally charged, only to discover everyone else finds them to be plain stupid.

"in their bedrooms"?






> Edit: This is a zygote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a baby:


BOTH are persons.

if they are not, explain how Scott Peterson is watching cable TV on death row for killing not one, but TWO PERSONS.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I'm back on topic and will just say that ..yes, firearms are tools whose main purpose is to *enable* people to kill safely from a distance.
> Thus they are very useful to hunt game, help feed families provide for sporting games and assist in self-defense.
> 
> The fact that they are *dangerous* tools makes it logical THAT SOCIETY PUTS SOME REGULATIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION AND USE.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS)


Chainsaws are really dangerous tools. More than 28,500 injuries in 1999

Nail guns are dangerous. 

Nail guns are dangerous. At least 28,600 injuries in 2005 Since 98% of those injuries were upon men, what should we as society do about it?

a) Ban men from carpentry.
b) Draft thousands of women into carpentry, and hope they don't nail the men to the floor?
c) Ban nails, since nailing things is sexist and rape.
d) Ban housing, since a house is a dead forest.
e) Ban nail guns to save energy, go back to using hammers.
f) Turn the monitoring of nail gun injury statistics to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which will always show a declining nail-gun injury rate from month to month and always revise upwards when no one is looking?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Not a single person was killed in that shootout but the 2 bad guys who were out for money.
> Compare that to Aurora,Columbine, Sandy Hill, etc. where the crazy perps were out to kill people and die themselves.
> 
> So ends my part in our conversation because we keep making the same points...over and over.


Losing all the time bothers you finally?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Getting a CC permit is ridiculously easy in most localities...but just having a weapon gives one a false sense of security in that you really need tactical training in a stressful situation to be safe yourself and not a danger to others.
> Civilians have accès to many places where you can get such training at fairly reasonable rates and it's an absolute must if you plan on carrying a firearm!
> (contact your local PD and they can advise you of facilities where you can be trained)
> 
> IMO...the license and the firearm are useless without such training!


Yeah, nothing like having no weapon at all to give a woman that feeling of ultimate security when she walks to her car in the dark parking lot.

And the Rodents LOVE to claim they aren't waging the real war on women.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I have always supported citizens having guns for self-defense purposes.
> What I don't support is civilians owning military weapons.
> Got it?
> 
> If you're just spoiling for a fight...find someone else.



Yeah, what we got from that statement, some 9,000 entries ago, is that your refuse to state any definition of what a "military" weapon is.

Since all branches of the military STILL issue the .45 semi-automatic pistol as a sidearm, that handy gun is BY DEFINITION, a "military weapon".

The AR-15 IS NOT a military weapon, since it cannot go full auto, it's merely a .22 rifle.  So clearly since it is not "military", by definition, you naturally have no objection to people owning AR-15's and the equivalents.

Correct?

Crickets, huh?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yawn:
> 
> 
> 
> My* opinion* is that any semi-auto of *any caliber* that has a magazine limited to 10 rounds* is not* a military weapon for civilian sale purposes and should be available to licensed adults.
> Shotguns are not military weapons in my opinion, unless they are fully automatic...like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In other words, you don't have a "definition", you have vague statements based on your failed political ideology and emotions of the moment.

The CONGRESS is forbidden from regulating arms.  Read the Second Amendment some day.

The definition of a "military" weapon is "any weapon presently in use or formerly used as official issue in any formally organized military unit".   

The word "weapon" for this discussion should be limited to "hand-portable small arms of any size capable of using chemical energy to propell a solid non-explosive round towards a target".  Which will leave out sling-shots, bows and arrows, blowguns and darts.

Now that you have been given REAL and REASONABLE definitions of what a "military weapon" might be, where's the imaginary line you want to draw?

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Your foolish argument was that the Second Amendment is not unlimited because in no sane universe would private citizens be allowed to buy their own nukes.


Why?
Says who?
"......the right of the people to keep and bear* arms*, shall not be infringed."

(I'd change your argument to: *"in no sane universe would private citizens be allowed to buy their own hundred round drum magazines)*

What right dies Congress have to regulate nuclear arms?
Who said this?



> The CONGRESS is forbidden from regulating arms. Read the Second Amendment some day.




..................................................  ..................................................  ............................................







> My response was that your argument was plain stupid because no government is going to ban the personal ownership of nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are not attainable by any private citizen, there being no market for them.


Absurd argument.

----------


## Devil505

> Oh so NOW you're back on topic.  Why is that?


I'm a masochist?
Boredom?

----------


## Victory

> What conservative has said that?


Answer:  Not a single one.

The silence speaks volumes.

----------


## Devil505

> Any law regulating the carrying of firearms is an unconstitutional law.


I think the law of gravity is an unconstitutional law. Therefore I will not be bound by it. (oops...dropped my pen)

Surely you understand how silly your argument is? (and I know....don't call you Shirley)

----------


## Victory

> Military weapons being defined by you as having over 10 rounds in a magazine.
> 
> If the anti-gun mob ever made that happen, then they'll start pushing of 5 rounds as maximum and, eventually, single shot.


We're almost there already.  Ever hear of "single shot exemption" in California?  Many handguns in CA are illegal to buy unless they are modified to fire only a "single shot."  I'm talking perfectly acceptable hand guns like a Springfield XDM and a Sig Saur P938.

----------


## Victory

> I'm a masochist?
> Boredom?


I think we knew that already.  I was hoping for something a little more enlightening.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I think the law of gravity is an unconstitutional law. Therefore I will not be bound by it. (oops...dropped my pen)
> 
> Surely you understand how silly your argument is? (and I know....don't call you Shirley)


Since there are no enumerated powers in the Constitution allowing any branch of the federal government to regulate gravity, you'd be correct in that it's unconstitutional.

The Wright brothers would be so relieved.

----------

Devil505 (10-31-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

The federal government does regulate the airspace.

----------


## Figaro

I've thought about...if a person has a gun, it is likely that he will behave less cautiously than the unarmed man. That is, having a weapon in, you will take a bear by the tooth. What do you think?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I've thought about...if a person has a gun, it is likely that he will behave less cautiously than the unarmed man. That is, having a weapon in, you will take a bear by the tooth. What do you think?


I think that a *fool* would so behave.

An educated, trained, intelligent person...would understand that possession of a weapon is not license to USE it; and that its use will involve much money, much time, much sorrow and possibly - even if justifiable by logic, even if in self-defense - *conviction and prison time*.

Brandishing a weapon ups the ante.  If you get into fistacuffs with a stranger, the most that will happen is you're arrested for Disorderly Conduct.  If in the course of trading off blows, you pull out a Glock...now it's possibly Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Communicating a Threat; perhaps, if the opponent has lying friends as witnesses, Armed Robbery.

PULL that trigger, and - depending on how the dice land - it could be Second Degree Homicide or even, if the prosecutor has a hard-on for you, Murder One.

So...is a person going to behave MORE recklessly, with that hanging over him?...or LESS so?

----------


## squidward

> My* opinion* is that any semi-auto of *any caliber* that has a magazine limited to 10 rounds* is not* a military weapon for civilian sale purposes and should be available to licensed adults.


thank you for your opinion. 
Every idiot has one too. So what ?

----------


## Devil505

> thank you for your opinion. 
> Every idiot has one too. So what ?


The difference is I was asked.....you weren't.

----------


## Devil505

> An educated, trained, intelligent person...would understand that possession of a weapon is not license to USE it; .....


I know of no localities where any of those things are required in order to get a CC license.
(ie an uneducated moron who has never touched a gun in his life can get a license almost anywhere in this country)

----------


## Graham Garner

This is in response to the Post# 709 by Mr. Victory regarding the Second Amendment:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)

  We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. _Miller_ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted) _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

----------

Devil505 (10-31-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I've thought about...if a person has a gun, it is likely that he will behave less cautiously than the unarmed man. That is, having a weapon in, you will take a bear by the tooth. What do you think?


Good question.

When I'm going to and from the range with my pistol in the car, I am the very model of decency--even moreso than my regular curteous driving disposition.  This whole "a gun makes you more aggressive" trope is bullshit.

----------


## Victory

> My* opinion* is that any semi-auto of *any caliber* that has a magazine limited to 10 rounds* is not* a military weapon for civilian sale purposes and should be available to licensed adults.


Why 10?  Why not 9?  Why not 11?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I know of no localities where any of those things are required in order to get a CC license.
> (ie an uneducated moron who has never touched a gun in his life can get a license almost anywhere in this country)


Examples, or it isn't true.

Also...a person isn't hatched, typically, the day he gets a concealed-carry permit.  He's an adult and has demonstrated how he handles responsibility.

A felony conviction is a disqualifier.  Most stupid people soon find themselves in trouble with the law.

That's one weeding-out right there.

----------


## Victory

> This is in response to the Post# 709 by Mr. Victory regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> ‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (FN 26 Omitted)
> 
>   ‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. _Miller_ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted)’ _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).


So glad you brought up William Blackstone.  Here's your original quote:




> Your right to carry a firearm is subject to law.  Get this very simple principle through your cold, dead head.  The Second Amendment only secures the right that is subject to law.  It is not unlimited - it is subject to law.


You've also said everything is subject to law and that Congress can regulate the very air we breathe.  This is a positivist view of the law.  It goes directly against Natural Law in that Natural Law exists whether or not humans CREATE laws that regulate the air we breathe or the guns we own.

Let's hear what William Blackstone has to say in related contexts:




> No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.
> --Citation-Blackstone Commentaries


Whoops!  There goes your positivist interpretation of the law right out the window.  God's law trumps Man's law!  Thank God for William Blackstone!  Not sure why you'd want to quote him but. . .there you have it.

He also says some very influential things about individual rights including the right to bear arms:




> To vindicate the three primary rights [personal security, personal liberty, private property], when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”


Wow!  William Blackstone advocating taking up personal arms in the event that the state fails to serve justice!  You reading this, Devil?  Of course you are.  You read all my replies.




> “Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so i*t is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.*”


Wow!  BLAM!  Your positivist interpretation takes another devastating hit from the man you quote, William Blackstone.  The "laws of society" are the very laws you advocate that can regulate guns and regulate "the very air we breathe."  Your words not mine.

What kind of law did you practice?

----------

Invayne (11-02-2014),Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

funny how some "educated" people fail to recognize that the constitution and bill of rights only specify what "rights" are "surrendered" to the federal govt., *not* what rights are "given" to the people..

the govt. "gives" no rights to anyone,,we, the people, "give" rights to the govt..

as usual, they get it all ass-backwards...

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (10-31-2014),Invayne (11-02-2014),Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> funny how some "educated" people fail to recognize that the constitution and bill of rights only specify what "rights" are "surrendered" to the federal govt., *not* what rights are "given" to the people..
> 
> the govt. "gives" no rights to anyone,,we, the people, "give" rights to the govt..
> 
> as usual, they get it all ass-backwards...


That's intentional.  Libburls are ALL ABOUT government.

That's their hope, dream and life-work.  They have NO OTHER way to riches or personal power...would you hire Hillary Rodham to mop out your toilet?  She couldn't even keep track of a batch of FILES, fer chrissakes!

A COMPLETE INCOMPETENT - and loud, mouthy and violent, too.  Where ELSE but in goobermint can she immerse herself in the money-stream, to grab as much of it as she can as she steers it towards her friends and allies?

----------


## Devil505

> Why 10?  Why not 9?  Why not 11?


Why a speed limit of 60 mph and not 61 or 59?

----------


## Devil505

> Examples, or it isn't true.


lol (you're not to good at this debate shit are you)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why a speed limit of 60 mph and not 61 or 59?


Why indeed.

And what are the consequences of arbitrary limits on auto speeds?

_vis a vis_ the limits on PERSONAL PROTECTION AND SELF DEFENSE?

Where in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to drive your car as fast as you choose?

Where in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms?

----------

Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## Victory

> funny how some "educated" people fail to recognize that the constitution and bill of rights only specify what "rights" are "surrendered" to the federal govt., *not* what rights are "given" to the people..
> 
> the govt. "gives" no rights to anyone,,we, the people, "give" rights to the govt..
> 
> as usual, they get it all ass-backwards...


It seems that Graham has spent a career getting so wrapped up in the law he has forgotten to take a step back and see how the law fits in (or does NOT fit in) with the rest of the universe.  Apparently, the law IS the universe.

Dangerous thinking.

----------

Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It seems that Graham has spent a career getting so wrapped up in the law he has forgotten to take a step back and see how the law fits in (or does NOT fit in) with the rest of the universe.  Apparently, the law IS the universe.
> 
> Dangerous thinking.


But typical.

That's why so many lawyers are carpetbagger-liberals.  Liberalism opens up whole new arenas to be clever and enrich one's self in twisting words around.

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> lol (you're not to good at this debate shit are you)


No evidence, roger.

Assertion is not proof.

----------


## Victory

> Why a speed limit of 60 mph and not 61 or 59?


Don't care.  It's irrelevant to this challenge.  Going one mile over the speed limit does not put my life at any great risk.  Setting a limit to the size of a magazine does.

Why 10?  Why not 9?  Why not 11?

If you can't answer that with anything more cogent and compelling than a broken analogy about a speed limit, I'll conclude you just haven't thought it through.

----------


## Rutabaga

speaking of speed limits...guess most have forgot the 55 mph federal speed limit enforced for many years,,until they decided it was not necessary and only served to imprison/fine people..

guess they were wrong..
i wonder how many think its the only time govt. has been wrong?

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why?
> Says who?
> "......the right of the people to keep and bear* arms*, shall not be infringed."
> 
> (I'd change your argument to: *"in no sane universe would private citizens be allowed to buy their own hundred round drum magazines)*
> 
> What right dies Congress have to regulate nuclear arms?


The right to be free dies when Congress regulates arms.

As your ass was already handed to you on your stale "but ya can't own nukes huh? huh? huh?" argument, I'll not waste further time with it. I will just note that yet once again the forum Rodent troll invader from another culture can't figure out that their refuted argument does not come back to life just because the forum Rodent troll invader from another culture repeats it.




> Who said this?


I did.

Because I'm not STUPID, which makes me different from EVERY Obama voter, and I know what the word "arms" in the Second Amendment means.

Since I'm not STUPID, I'll merely point out that your efforts to take things out of context is truly ridiculous when you attempt to use them against the people that said them in their proper context.





_ Originally Posted by Sled Dog  
My response was that your argument was plain stupid because no government is going to ban the personal ownership of nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are not attainable by any private citizen, there being no market for them._




> Absurd argument.


Your complete inability to understand economics is legendary.  No person capable of understanding economics spends a lifetime attempting to punish and kill people who deal in desired substances the government has attempted to ban.

Since you are incapable of understanding economics, it's not difficult to see why you believe valid economic arguments are "absurd".  Fish don't understand eagles, not in the least little bit.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> speaking of speed limits...guess most have forgot the 55 mph federal speed limit enforced for many years,,until they decided it was not necessary and only served to imprison/fine people..
> 
> guess they were wrong..
> i wonder how many think its the only time govt. has been wrong?


Neither wrong nor right.  It's a LOCAL decision; and SHOULD HAVE BEEN left to States and localities.

Even to this day, some Interstates in some zones have 55-mph speed limits.  That's up to them.  In most areas of the nation it is ridiculous.

Nobody went to jail for that, BTW.  It was huge amounts of TRAFFIC fines - but also, the huge amount of diversionary work for police; easy work that didn't fight crime but did rip off and anger the public.

It took twenty years and a conservative sea-change to get it repealed.  And it's gonna take at LEAST as long to delouse Washington from the current crop of libburl leeches.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think the law of gravity is an unconstitutional law. Therefore I will not be bound by it. (oops...dropped my pen)
> 
> Surely you understand how silly your argument is? (and I know....don't call you Shirley)


You can call me Surely if you wish, because surely you made the most ridiculous argument on the board today.

You may decide to not be bound by the law of nature if you want.  Take it up with Gaia's supreme court, even.  She'll ignore you for being an insignificant Rodent.

None of that has anything to do with the laws of men.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I've thought about...if a person has a gun, it is likely that he will behave less cautiously than the unarmed man. That is, having a weapon in, you will take a bear by the tooth. What do you think?


I think if someone has a gun they can leave the practice of ursine dentistry to those who don't.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think that a *fool* would so behave.
> 
> An educated, trained, intelligent person...would understand that possession of a weapon is not license to USE it; and that its use will involve much money, much time, much sorrow and possibly - even if justifiable by logic, even if in self-defense - *conviction and prison time*.
> 
> Brandishing a weapon ups the ante. If you get into fistacuffs with a stranger, the most that will happen is you're arrested for Disorderly Conduct. If in the course of trading off blows, you pull out a Glock...now it's possibly Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Communicating a Threat; perhaps, if the opponent has lying friends as witnesses, Armed Robbery.
> 
> PULL that trigger, and - depending on how the dice land - it could be Second Degree Homicide or even, if the prosecutor has a hard-on for you, Murder One.
> 
> So...is a person going to behave MORE recklessly, with that hanging over him?...or LESS so?


Really?

George Zimmerman was indicted ONLY becuase of intense political pressure from the very highest levels in the federal government, and the jury that acquitted him asked why they were bothered with that nonsense.

It depends on who started the fight.

In the Zimmerman case it was Thug Horst Wessel Obama Martin.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why 10? Why not 9? Why not 11?


He obviously binged on the entire Monk series recently.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why a speed limit of 60 mph and not 61 or 59?


Why a speed limit?  Note local roads, but on the major limited access freeways.   

Answer:  To raise revenues.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Neither wrong nor right.  It's a LOCAL decision; and SHOULD HAVE BEEN left to States and localities.
> 
> Even to this day, some Interstates in some zones have 55-mph speed limits.  That's up to them.  In most areas of the nation it is ridiculous.
> 
> *Nobody went to jail for that*, BTW.  It was huge amounts of TRAFFIC fines - but also, the huge amount of diversionary work for police; easy work that didn't fight crime but did rip off and anger the public.
> 
> It took twenty years and a conservative sea-change to get it repealed.  And it's gonna take at LEAST as long to delouse Washington from the current crop of libburl leeches.


ahhh,,but some did...getting numerous speeding tickets will indeed land you in jail...and the speed limit was a federally inacted speed limit on all interstate highways...

"The 55 mph speed limit was* mandated by the federal government in* 1973 at the behest of President Nixon, who proposed it as a way to conserve fuel during the Arab oil embargo. States, which had always set the speed limits on their highways, suddenly found they had lost their authority."

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-clok55.html

----------


## Victory

> OK...I watched your video and he makes absolute sense *and backs my argument!*
> The reason why civilians should not own nukes or other military weapons is that they are just to dangerous and they lose the danger vs benefit test.
> 
> Just as your video argues, the exact same thing can be argued about civilians bringing guns with 100 round drum magazines into a movie theater and killing scores of people with it!
> 
> Secondly, many on your side argue the the 2nd Amendment sets no limitation on any arms...... so where does it say some are to dangerous for civilians to own in the Constitution?....*It doesn't...Common-sense tells us all we need to know!*


Since you're such a fan of the video here's another one from the same guy entitled "Why anyone needs an Assault Rifle?"




Fail at enjoying to fail your failed fail.

----------

freyasman (10-31-2014),Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Good question.
> 
> When I'm going to and from the range with my pistol in the car, I am the very model of decency--even moreso than my regular curteous driving disposition.  This whole "a gun makes you more aggressive" trope is bullshit.


An armed society is a polite society
Robert Heinlein

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-31-2014),Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So glad you brought up William Blackstone.  Here's your original quote:
> 
> 
> 
> You've also said everything is subject to law and that Congress can regulate the very air we breathe.  This is a positivist view of the law.  It goes directly against Natural Law in that Natural Law exists whether or not humans CREATE laws that regulate the air we breathe or the guns we own.
> 
> Let's hear what William Blackstone has to say in related contexts:
> 
> 
> ...



Obviously the Laws of Diminishing Returns

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Why a speed limit of 60 mph and not 61 or 59?


Why indeed?  Why a speed limit at all?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Since you're such a fan of the video here's another one from the same guy entitled "Why anyone needs an Assault Rifle?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail at enjoying to fail your failed fail.


the guy in the video reminded me of something that i also believe,,that when something better than whats out there now comes along, i will have one when it becomes available...i wont ask for permission, or care what others believe..i care whats best for me.

others can do as they want,,just as i always have and will continue to do.


and people the libs cannot control scares the living shit outta dems...

----------


## nonsqtr

We keep going back and forth on this gun thing. Maybe we should rephrase the question, and do a hypothetical.

Conservatives - let's say we had a "complete respect for the Constitution, vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.

Then, there would still be "some" people who really shouldn't have weapons, right? For instance the criminally insane - they probably shouldn't have weapons. They are "dangers to self and others" even without weapons, and the danger magnifies with weapons in the equation.

So now, my question is, by what mechanism should the determination be made?

a. should we regulate the weapons of the criminally insane? is that Constitutional? - and - 
b. if so, how should we do it?

----------

Devil505 (10-31-2014)

----------


## Victory

> We keep going back and forth on this gun thing. Maybe we should rephrase the question, and do a hypothetical.
> 
> Conservatives - let's say we had a "complete respect for the Constitution, vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.
> 
> Then, there would still be "some" people who really shouldn't have weapons, right? For instance the criminally insane - they probably shouldn't have weapons. They are "dangers to self and others" even without weapons, and the danger magnifies with weapons in the equation.
> 
> So now, my question is, by what mechanism should the determination be made?
> 
> a. should we regulate the weapons of the criminally insane? is that Constitutional? - and - 
> b. if so, how should we do it?


How is it done now?  Does "certifiable" come with a certificate?

----------

nonsqtr (10-31-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

oh i fully agree some people should not have guns..

and if/when those people present a danger to me or mine i will do my best to kill them..

i will then take their weapon and add it to my own..

[and any other valuables they may have at the time]..

police are not required.


[that might be more difficult for city folk.....oh well,,,shit happens]..

----------


## Victory

> Getting a CC permit is ridiculously easy in most localities...


Getting a CC permit is nearly impossible in California "MAY" counties.  Unless, of course, your name is "Boxer" or "Feinstein."  Then you're right.

----------


## Devil505

> Getting a CC permit is nearly impossible in California "MAY" counties.  Unless, of course, your name is "Boxer" or "Feinstein."  Then you're right.


So which is it then.....do you like local decision making or should we leave it up to the feds? (can't have it both ways)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

http://www.tn.gov/safety/handgun/qualifications.shtml


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...2131517AAO4jj7


Some people are just full of shit you know?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So which is it then.....do you like local decision making or should we leave it up to the feds? (can't have it both ways)



What????

----------


## Rutabaga

gee, and in some states, you dont need anyone, govt. agency etc. to carry concealed..

lets look at those states as compared to states that do require permits and see which ones have a higher gun crime rate...

you anti-2nds will not like the facts...bet on it...

----------


## Victory

> gee, and in some states, you dont need anyone, govt. agency etc. to carry concealed..
> 
> lets look at those states as compared to states that do require permits and see which ones have a higher gun crime rate...
> 
> you anti-2nds will not like the facts...bet on it...


Well, let's see.  Let's start with Chicago.

Any gun control advocates wanna hash out the details?

 @Devil505 how 'bout you?

----------

Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> What????


Victory was complaining about local Regs.



> Getting a CC permit is nearly impossible in California "MAY" counties. Unless, of course, your name is "Boxer" or "Feinstein." Then you're right.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Really?
> 
> George Zimmerman was indicted ONLY becuase of intense political pressure from the very highest levels in the federal government, and the jury that acquitted him asked why they were bothered with that nonsense.
> 
> It depends on who started the fight.
> 
> In the Zimmerman case it was Thug Horst Wessel Obama Martin.


True enough; but it doesn't negate my point.

Zimmerman was doing what he was supposed to be doing.  But surely he knew if he swaggered down the street, quick-drawing at shadows, he would have gotten at least what he did anyway.  

That he got the same, for a _Bonfire of the Vanities_ - style mob, does not mean he would be justified in recklessly pulling out the gun and challenging every pedestrian.  Nor does it mean he would think he should.

Zimmerman got railroaded; which speaks of what happens when a courtroom is controlled by a mob; but says nothing about "increased risks" of fighting or shooting when someone is carrying a weapon.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Well, let's see.  Let's start with Chicago.
> 
> Any gun control advocates wanna hash out the details?
> 
>  @Devil505 how 'bout you?


no,,,,they dont...

the facts do not support their position....

but i am patient,,,and will ask again, whenever the question of concealed carry comes up....

----------


## Victory

> So which is it then.....do you like local decision making or should we leave it up to the feds? (can't have it both ways)


No.

Your question is completely disconnected from what you replied to.  Neither of us has any idea what you're talking about so the answer is just simply, "No."

----------


## Rutabaga

> No.
> 
> Your question is completely disconnected from what you replied to.  Neither of us has any idea what you're talking about so the answer is just simply, "No."


its called "re-direction" and is a favorite tactic of the debate-challenged...

i dont allow it,  drives them crazy.

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> No.
> 
> Your question is completely disconnected from what you replied to.  Neither of us has any idea what you're talking about so the answer is just simply, "No."


I'll spell it out:
You're complaining about local Calif. regs concerning CC licenses and yet you claim you want local, not federal controls.
Which is it.....want the feds to control availability of CC licenses nationwide or leave it up to the states/Cities?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'll spell it out:
> You're complaining about local Calif. regs concerning CC licenses and yet you claim you want local, not federal controls.
> Which is it.....want the feds to control availability of CC licenses nationwide or leave it up to the states/Cities?


 *No concealed-carry permits.

They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL*.

Do we need to read to you, Amendment II, ONCE MORE?

Permits are a way of denying this Constitutional right to some.  Hence, BY DEFINITION, it IS INFRINGEMENT.

----------

Invayne (11-02-2014),nonsqtr (10-31-2014),Sled Dog (11-01-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I'll spell it out:
> You're complaining about local Calif. regs concerning CC licenses and yet you claim you want local, not federal controls.
> Which is it.....want the feds to control availability of CC licenses nationwide or leave it up to the states/Cities?


Have you stopped beating your dog?

I believe that local regulations should not trump an amendment made at the federal level.

I believe that federal officials should observe same amendment made at the federal level.

For further insight into what I'm talking about, see Arizona, New Hampshire, and Alaska.  Thank you and pay on your way out.

----------

Rutabaga (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> *No concealed-carry permits.
> 
> They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL*.
> 
> Do we need to read to you, Amendment II, ONCE MORE?
> 
> Permits are a way of denying this Constitutional right to some.  Hence, BY DEFINITION, it IS INFRINGEMENT.





> Have you stopped beating your dog?
> 
> I believe that local regulations should not trump an amendment made at the federal level.
> 
> I believe that federal officials should observe same amendment made at the federal level.
> 
> For further insight into what I'm talking about, see Arizona, New Hampshire, and Alaska. Thank you and pay on your way out.


Translations: I refuse to accept both the SCOTUS's authority to interpret the Constitution and I refuse to accept the law of gravity.
Therefore I plan to float around my prison cell when I'm arrested!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Translations: I refuse to accept both the SCOTUS's authority to interpret the Constitution and the law of gravity.
> Therefore I plan to float around my prison cell when I'm arrested!


What, are you firing up the bong early this weekend?  I said nothing of accepting the Supreme Court's authority.

I am not advocating rioting in the streets or marching on Washington.

I am telling you, as a matter of speech, grammar, intent, fact and from the Authors' own DISCUSSIONS on the Constitution...the Supreme Court is IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

That is fact.  The Authors said this; and the Court has discounted it and violated it.  What is there to discuss?

The Court needs twelve Impeachments; but Impeachment is not something the citizens can begin or participate in.  So it goes...

----------


## Rutabaga

funny thing..ive carried for over 40 years in and out of states, places etc. that said it was illegal to do so...

never been arrested...been pulled over and ticketed,,had a gun,,lied to the cop, said i didnt have one when he asked if i did, and i didnt shoot him..

funny how that works, eh?

----------


## Devil505

> I am telling you, as a matter of speech, grammar, intent, fact and from the Authors' own DISCUSSIONS on the Constitution...the Supreme Court is IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
> 
> That is fact.  The Authors said this; and the Court has discounted it and violated it.  What is there to discuss?


lol

----------


## hoytmonger

> Translations: I refuse to accept both the SCOTUS's authority to interpret the Constitution and I refuse to accept the law of gravity.
> Therefore I plan to float around my prison cell when I'm arrested!


SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution... we've been through this before. Marbury v. Madison was the _opinion_ of the court and as such, their opinion is only as valid as anyone else's. The evidence of this is several cases in which the states or the President nullified the decisions of SCOTUS, including the nullification of John Marshall's decision that the Bank of the United States was constitutional... but Andrew Jackson defunded it anyway.

If you look into the history of Marbury v. Madison, it wasn't Madison that didn't deliver the commission to Marbury. It was in fact John Adam's Secretary of State who failed to deliver it... John Marshall... who was also an acolyte of Alexander Hamilton, one of the worst despots in US political history.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> lol


Fools laugh at wisdom.

Wanna add something that maybe doesn't leave us thinking you're a fool? 

Or maybe at least, remove all doubt...

----------


## Devil505

> SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution... we've been through this before. Marbury v. Madison was the _opinion_ of the court and as such, their opinion is only as valid as anyone else's. The evidence of this is several cases in which the states or the President nullified the decisions of SCOTUS, including the nullification of John Marshall's decision that the Bank of the United States was constitutional... but Andrew Jackson defunded it anyway.
> 
> If you look into the history of Marbury v. Madison, it wasn't Madison that didn't deliver the commission to Marbury. It was in fact John Adam's Secretary of State who failed to deliver it... John Marshall... who was also an acolyte of Alexander Hamilton, one of the worst despots in US political history.


Just tell it to the judge.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Just tell it to the judge.


what judge?

gotta be arrested to see a judge...

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Just tell it to the judge.


Are you able to understand the difference between FACT and LEGAL FINDINGS?

The FACT is, O.J. killed his wife.

The LEGAL FINDING was, he was innocent.

What the jury determined did NOT change what happened; and it wasn't magically or supernaturally LINKED to what happened.  What it was was that a statement of twelve supposed "peers" (who in fact were star-struck anti-white racists or self-haters) PROCLAIMED that O.J. wasn't to be punished.

Which means he cannot be punished or held legally liable, over and above his civil conviction.  

It does NOT mean he didn't in fact and in truth, kill anyone!

The Supreme Court is akin to a game umpire or referee.  He decides; and there is no appeal.  Right or wrong, that is how it is.

Which does not mean the umpire or referee is never wrong.  Frequently he is; and is shown to be with photos and videos.

Can you get that through your leaden cranium?

----------


## nonsqtr

> How is it done now?  Does "certifiable" come with a certificate?


Yes, exactly. That's what I meant. So if they're certified, they're on a list somewhere.

But now, think this one through. Let's say this certified person shows up at a gun shop and tries to buy a .38, what happens?

Currently, I believe the gun store owner has to pay 50 dollars for an electronic NCIS transaction, a "database search". (That cost is presumably passed on to the buyer).

Are you saying you're okay with "no change" to this way of doing the "background check"?

----------


## nonsqtr

> *No concealed-carry permits.
> 
> They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL*.
> 
> Do we need to read to you, Amendment II, ONCE MORE?
> 
> Permits are a way of denying this Constitutional right to some.  Hence, BY DEFINITION, it IS INFRINGEMENT.


Yes, that's my take too. "Permits" are a real interesting issue, if you look at the spectrum of how our government uses "permits" you can get a real education on what's (un)Constitutional.

This is one of the reasons I point people to the Slaughterhouse Cases. You can see there the genesis of the monopoly-followed-by-permit, which is the way they currently regulate taxicabs in just about every city.

The history of these power grabs is pretty sordid. It seems like We the People have to be Johnny On The Spot, we have to be ready to play Whack-A-Mole every time our government tries to grab something that isn't theirs (which it seems is "every day").

----------

Rutabaga (10-31-2014),Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Yes, exactly. That's what I meant. So if they're certified, they're on a list somewhere.
> 
> But now, think this one through. Let's say this certified person shows up at a gun shop and tries to buy a .38, what happens?
> 
> Currently, I believe the gun store owner has to pay 50 dollars for an electronic NCIS transaction, a "database search". (That cost is presumably passed on to the buyer).
> 
> Are you saying you're okay with "no change" to this way of doing the "background check"?


I am very mixed about the way things are done now.

Insane people should not carry guns.  On the other hand, who determines "insane?"  The instant the government is involved there will be pressure to include "common sense" measures.  For instance:  Patient A is not insane but has had serious anger issues to the extent that they've had "anger management" counciling.  And then there are the returning vets with PTSD.  And you've written extensively about anti-depressants.  These are not "certifiable" but you KNOW there has been political pressure to grab the guns of the sane but troubled.  And then there are the certifiable persons who are eventually cured.

I might not mind maintaining a list of no kidding "certifiably" insane people that should not be allowed access to guns.

I'm sure we need to find a better solution to depression than "anti-depressants."  Clearly, the cure is worse than the illness.

Am I okay with passing the cost of the search onto the customer?  If I trust the list I don't mind.  But I'm beginning to distrust the list.

----------


## Devil505

> I am very mixed about the way things are done now.
> Insane people should not carry guns.


*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

*Where does it say.."Except for insane people?"
Insane people are still people, right?


Come on....you strict constructionists are willing to violate the exact words of the Constitution? (shame on you Commies!)

On the other hand....you don't mean that the founding fathers intended that their words should be read with a little common-sense, do you?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Victory was complaining about local Regs.



So?  If the regulations are stupid does it matter who has put them in place?

----------


## Devil505

> So?  If the regulations are stupid does it matter who has put them in place?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> 


What???????

What point did I miss?  

If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the 1st Amendments specifically states the Federal Government can make no laws restricting the right to own arms how can the states over ride the provisions of the Constitution.  If the states decided to return to slavery would you argue they could?

----------


## Devil505

> What???????
> 
> What point did I miss?  
> 
> If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the 1st Amendments specifically states the Federal Government can make no laws restricting the right to own arms how can the states over ride the provisions of the Constitution.  If the states decided to return to slavery would you argue they could?


You're getting colder.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
> 
> *Where does it say.."Except for insane people?"
> Insane people are still people, right?
> 
> 
> Come on....you strict constructionists are willing to violate the exact words of the Constitution? (shame on you Commies!)
> 
> On the other hand....you don't mean that the founding fathers intended that their words should be read with a little common-sense, do you?


Insane people belong in asylums.

If they're sane enough to walk the streets, they're sane enough to own firearms.  If they DEMONSTRATE that they are NOT...that was what insane asylums were created for; and we'll make life better on every level when we return to locking up the insane.

Likewise convicted felons.  If they're free to walk, they're free to pack.  If they cannot handle the freedom to own a firearm...cannot handle that freedom responsibly...they belong in prison/stocks/whipping post/gallows.

When the gangbangers and Sons Uv Barry realize that the white peeps dey gettin SERIOUS bout not stanin fo no crime...they'll get their shit in one sock; and that, as they say, will be that.

----------


## Devil505

> Insane people belong in asylums.
> 
> If they're sane enough to walk the streets, they're sane enough to own firearms.  If they DEMONSTRATE that they are NOT...that was what insane asylums were created for; and we'll make life better on every level when we return to locking up the insane.
> 
> Likewise convicted felons.  If they're free to walk, they're free to pack.  If they cannot handle the freedom to own a firearm...cannot handle that freedom responsibly...they belong in prison/stocks/whipping post/gallows.
> 
> When the gangbangers and Sons Uv Barry realize that the white peeps dey gettin SERIOUS bout not stanin fo no crime...they'll get their shit in one sock; and that, as they say, will be that.


Where does the 2nd Amendment say that inmates in an insane asylum or prison can have their right to bear arms infringed?

The words are quite clear....*Amendment II*

_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
_

*It doesn't say.*........"_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......unless they are inmates in a nuthouse or prison."_


You damn Commies ...like JPT...are trying to take our rights away!

----------


## Rutabaga

> Where does the 2nd Amendment say that inmates in an insane asylum or prison can have their right to bear arms infringed?
> 
> The words are quite clear....*Amendment II*
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> 
> You damn Commies ...like JPT...are trying to take our rights away!


where does it say it can restrict firearms?

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> where does it say it can restrict firearms?


It doesn't!

So all inmates in insane asylums and prisons should *IMMEDIATELY* be given their rights and be given hand grenades and Uzi's!

----------


## Rutabaga

> It doesn't!
> 
> *So all inmates in insane asylums and prisons should IMMEDIATELY be given their rights and be given hand grenades and Uzi's*!


why would you say that?

----------


## Devil505

> why would you say that?


Because they are PEOPLE and the 2nd A guarantees their rights too.


_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._

----------


## Rutabaga

> Because they are PEOPLE and the 2nd A guarantees their rights too.
> 
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed._


it also makes no mention of slavery..

do you think slavery should be allowed?

----------


## Devil505

> it also makes no mention of slavery..
> 
> do you think slavery should be allowed?


Only if they also are given hand grenades and Uzi's.
(They are "People" too, right?)

Come on......let's adhere to a strict construction of the Constitution.
*No interpretation or common sense allowed!*

----------


## Rutabaga

> Only if they also are given hand grenades and Uzi's.
> (They are "People" too, right?)
> 
> Come on......let's adhere to a strict construction of the Constitution.
> *No interpretation or common sense needed!*


so you would like to bring slavery back...

ok,,,go for it...

----------


## Devil505

> so you would like to bring slavery back...
> 
> ok,,,go for it...


Why do you hate your country?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Where does the 2nd Amendment say that inmates in an insane asylum or prison can have their right to bear arms infringed?
> 
> The words are quite clear....*Amendment II*
> 
> _A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> _
> 
> *It doesn't say.*........"_A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......unless they are inmates in a nuthouse or prison."_
> 
> ...


Where do *I* say that their rights are conditional?

That's YOUR line.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why do you hate your country?


Why haven't you gotten treatment for your projection and self-loathing?

----------

Victory (10-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Where do *I* say that their rights are conditional?





> *If they're sane enough to walk the streets*, they're sane enough to own firearms.





> Likewise convicted felons. *If they're free to walk*, they're free to pack.


Those are conditions.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Why do you hate your country?


why do you want slavery brought back?

the republicans worked so hard to abolish it, and you want to bring it back?

are you a member of the democrats KKK party?

----------


## JustPassinThru

You're not making any sense.

How the FUCK am I advocating taking rights away by pointing out that a right is all-inclusive of THE PEOPLE - and shall not be infringed?

What are you, on your third bag?

----------


## Devil505

> You're not making any sense.
> 
> How the FUCK am I advocating taking rights away by pointing out that a right is all-inclusive of THE PEOPLE - and shall not be infringed?
> 
> What are you, on your third bag?


Reread my poster #857.
Where does the 2nd A say the people have be walking free to have the right to bear arms?...It doesn't!
How dare you make sport of our founders!!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Insane people belong in asylums.
> 
> If they're sane enough to walk the streets, they're sane enough to own firearms.  If they DEMONSTRATE that they are NOT...that was what insane asylums were created for; and we'll make life better on every level when we return to locking up the insane.
> 
> Likewise convicted felons.  If they're free to walk, they're free to pack.  If they cannot handle the freedom to own a firearm...cannot handle that freedom responsibly...they belong in prison/stocks/whipping post/gallows.
> 
> When the gangbangers and Sons Uv Barry realize that the white peeps dey gettin SERIOUS bout not stanin fo no crime...they'll get their shit in one sock; and that, as they say, will be that.


So, what about the people on antidepressants? Do they represent "too much of a risk" because of a 1% incidence of psychosis?

----------


## JustPassinThru

Mentally incompetent persons in institutions do not have the full panoply of rights.  They have been adjudicated as mentally unfit to handle their own affairs.  Like children, they are managed.  And someone else decides if and when they may use firearms (never, obviously).

Convicts do not have full rights.  Incarceration is forfeiture of the rights of free movement.  And frequently in the past, convicts were flogged - either as part of their sentence or for misconduct while in prison.

For that matter, persons under a contract of enlistment in the Armed Services don't have full rights - they frequently do not have the right of free movement; the right to choose their clothing; the right to arm themselves or NOT arm themselves.  Those decisions are made for them by their superior officers.

Do you want to pose more ridiculous challenges?  Are we to assassinate our brains when reading either the Founding Documents or libburls' justification for INVALIDATING our guaranteed rights?  Can you find no better argument than _reducto ad absurdum_?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So, what about the people on antidepressants? Do they represent "too much of a risk" because of a 1% incidence of psychosis?


A sane society - as opposed to one who sees the chaos these drugs wreak on society as an OPPORTUNITY to shove things Leftward towards forfeiture of rights - a reasonable society would have quickly removed these drugs from the marketplace and forbidden them from prescription to disturbed persons.

Yes, some people - on drugs or otherwise - will commit horrific crimes with guns.  As they do with knives, ropes, gas, bombs, their penises.  When they do so...PUNISH them.

Capital punishment is 100 percent effective in preventing recidivism.

----------


## Victory

> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
> 
> *Where does it say.."Except for insane people?"
> Insane people are still people, right?
> 
> 
> Come on....you strict constructionists are willing to violate the exact words of the Constitution? (shame on you Commies!)
> 
> On the other hand....you don't mean that the founding fathers intended that their words should be read with a little common-sense, do you?


Do you think the Founders before, during, and after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment allowed convicts access to firearms 'cuz convicts are people too?

There is nothing unstable about a high capacity magazine.  It poses as much threat to the populace as a rock.  There is everything unstable about an insane person.  We keep firearms away from insane people.  We also keep sharp objects away from them.  And we put them in a rubber room.

A magazine is not an insane person.  This shouldn't be that tough to get.

----------


## Victory

> Only if they also are given hand grenades and Uzi's.
> (They are "People" too, right?)
> 
> Come on......let's adhere to a strict construction of the Constitution.
> *No interpretation or common sense allowed!*


There is as much common sense in banning high cap mags as there is in banning rocks.

----------


## Victory

> So, what about the people on antidepressants? Do they represent "too much of a risk" because of a 1% incidence of psychosis?


I'd say no.

The answer to this is therapy without anti-depressants and more firearms in the hands of sane people.

----------

nonsqtr (11-01-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'd say no.
> 
> The answer to this is therapy without anti-depressants and more firearms in the hands of sane people.


See? You're a conservative, it's logical to you - even intuitive.

I'm the same way, and it seems to me you either see the world this way or you don't.

In my world, if you got a problem you don't try to patch it with band-aids. You actually fix it. I can't even count the number of times in my career I was instructed by upper management to use a Band-Aid (usually for immediate financial reasons), and I kept telling 'em the cost down the line was going to be staggeringly greater but all I got was ridicule 'cause it didn't fit their political agenda. And, sure enough, two years later when the company was falling apart and they were asking everyone to give up their bonuses and take a pay cut, all I could say was "told ya".

I mean, y'know, I fix guitar amps, the old kind with vacuum tubes. When something goes wrong in one of those things, there's usually some kind of Band-Aid that'll work for a little while, but by golly I've seen Band-Aided amps light on fire and explode on stage in the middle of a gig, and I mean.... this is the middle of the gig, gnome sain'? We don't get a second chance. If that amp goes we're going to have to stop the show while we find a place that'll rent one to us - and that's IF we happen to have enough money "before" the gig (which almost never happens)... so.... there it is.

Bottom line is, it's worth taking the amp apart and doing it right, no matter how long it takes. That way you get a reliable amp, and if something goes it'll be a fluke instead of a systemic failure. If anyone wants to know the details I can start talking about the filter capacitors, y'know... people actually take the used ones out and sell 'em on eBay, and the numbnuts liberal "collectors" buy 'em. It's truly amazing the level of stupidity that's out there in this world.

Yeah, I haven't run the numbers yet but it looks like there's about a 90% correlation between these mass killings and the use of antidepressants.

So like, I was asking the question from this standpoint:

Here we are, arguing that Nurse Kaci Hickox should voluntarily quarantine herself because she "may" be a danger to self and others.

So, should we voluntarily ask all the people taking antidepressants to temporarily give up their weapons while they're on the meds? Because they "may" be a danger to self and others?

I mean, lemme see... here in CA, if you have a medical marijuana license you are "automatically" on the verboten list for firearms. That's how it works in this state. So, should a similar policy apply to antidepressants?

----------


## Sled Dog

> speaking of speed limits...guess most have forgot the 55 mph federal speed limit enforced for many years,,until they decided it was not necessary and only served to imprison/fine people..
> 
> guess they were wrong..
> i wonder how many think its the only time govt. has been wrong?


Can one forget a law that one never obeyed?

----------


## Sled Dog

> We keep going back and forth on this gun thing. Maybe we should rephrase the question, and do a hypothetical.
> 
> Conservatives - let's say we had a "complete respect for the Constitution, vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.
> 
> Then, there would still be "some" people who really shouldn't have weapons, right? For instance the criminally insane - they probably shouldn't have weapons. They are "dangers to self and others" even without weapons, and the danger magnifies with weapons in the equation.
> 
> So now, my question is, by what mechanism should the determination be made?
> 
> a. should we regulate the weapons of the criminally insane? is that Constitutional? - and - 
> b. if so, how should we do it?


People who PROVE they shouldn't possess firearms are called "criminals".  If they are not shot in the commission of their crime, they should rot in jail until their eyesight fails, or at least until the joint fusing fractures on every single one of their fingers is healed, with the fingers frozen in an upwards and backwards curve.

I'm not complicated.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So which is it then.....do you like local decision making or should we leave it up to the feds? (can't have it both ways)


The Constitution forbids either feds or locals from requiring any form of permit.   It's what "shall not be infringed means".

You should learn how to read English.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Translations: I refuse to accept both the SCOTUS's authority to interpret the Constitution and I refuse to accept the law of gravity.
> Therefore I plan to float around my prison cell when I'm arrested!


Ah, yes.  You keep dragging in that tired old failed 'argument from authority'.

Since your position is flat wrong, since all you do is repeat failed arguments, why are you bothering?

----------


## Sled Dog

> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
> 
> *Where does it say.."Except for insane people?"




It doesn't.




> Insane people are still people, right?


No.

Everyone that voted for King Ebola is insane.  Nobody considers them to be people.  They're just stupid animals.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Where does the 2nd Amendment say that inmates in an insane asylum or prison can have their right to bear arms infringed?


Now the retarded arguments are being pulled out in last gasp desperation.

Criminals are deprived of liberty and property via the Fifth Amendment AFTER A TRIAL.

In case you haven't figured it out, and you probably haven't, firearms are PROPERTY.




> Article [V]
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


You REALLY must stop attempting to discuss matters of the Constitution outside your circle of door-busting brown shirts.   

You don't have the faintest idea about anything.

----------


## nonsqtr

Come on man, we're beating around the bush. (Gee that sounds like fun, but no pun intended).

The simple truth is the authority disappears once the People become sufficiently aggrieved.

All authority emanates from the People, and if you piss them off enough they're going to take it away from you. 

And there isn't even a single thing on God's green earth you can do to stop 'em, short of killing 'em all.

And what's Obama going to do, gas us all for being disobedient?

Nah man - the more likely thing is he'll send his minion Holder to broker a deal whereby the blacks get what they want without a public brouhaha, and the whites don't have to give up anything but their livelihoods.

That's the way these clowns operate, that's what they do. And I mean, if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and them can hold our federal government hostage by threatening 'em with riots and unrest, and get away with it, then *so can I*.

The only difference is, I'm part of the white middle class, and no one in this country's ever seen a riot till the white middle class gets pissed off. Boy oh boy, I wouldn't want to be on the butt end of that one. Are you fucking kidding me? We're talking about the same rotten bastards who drop bombs on Syria from all the way over in Nevada, I mean, these are some of the nastiest most ruthless people on the planet - only this larger crowd I'm talkin' about may have a different agenda, but other than that they're perfectly capable of being the same callous vicious people (because they are the same callous vicious people, that's how come they rose to the top in the first place).

Nah man, people aren't going to stand for this stuff that's going on. I have a feeling the Democrats are going to get trounced on Tuesday.

----------


## Devil505

> Mentally incompetent persons in institutions do not have the full panoply of rights.  They have been adjudicated as mentally unfit to handle their own affairs.  Like children, they are managed.  And someone else decides if and when they may use firearms (never, obviously).
> 
> Convicts do not have full rights.  Incarceration is forfeiture of the rights of free movement.


Can you link to that wording in the 2nd amendment? (I can't seem to find it)







> Are we to assassinate our brains when reading either the Founding Documents or libburls' justification for INVALIDATING our guaranteed rights?


Thanks for making my argument and destroying yours!  :Thumbsup20: 

*The constitution is not a suicide pact and nowhere in it does it prohibit the application of common sense!
100 round drum magazines have no place in civilian society.*

----------


## Devil505

> Do you think the Founders before, during, and after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment allowed convicts access to firearms 'cuz convicts are people too?
> 
> There is nothing unstable about a high capacity magazine.  It poses as much threat to the populace as a rock.  There is everything unstable about an insane person.  We keep firearms away from insane people.  We also keep sharp objects away from them.  And we put them in a rubber room.
> 
> A magazine is not an insane person.  This shouldn't be that tough to get.


Translation: Regardless of the exact words in the Constitution, common-sense should prevail and following the exact wording is myopic insanity.

Thanks....that's what I've been saying!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Translation: Regardless of the exact words in the Constitution, common-sense should prevail and following the exact wording is myopic insanity.


Translation:  The Constitution means what I say it should mean.

----------

Victory (11-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> I fix guitar amps, the old kind with vacuum tubes.


Speaking of which...I built this Heathkit guitar amp about 40 years ago:


It was transistors though.

----------


## Devil505

> The Constitution forbids either feds or locals from requiring any form of permit.   It's what "shall not be infringed means".
> 
> You should learn how to read English.


Your opinion is at odds with mine and the SCOTUS who's opinion happens to be law and they say that Regulation is not infringement.
Where in the 2nd A does it say criminals/whackos don't have the right to bear arms?

----------


## Graham Garner

Does the Constitution mean what it says?  A long time ago, I asked Laurence Tribe a question regarding constitutional interpretation, who said that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. I thought that he was jesting at the time; but after more than 40 years of reading Supreme Court reports, I have come to the conclusion that Professor Tribe meant what he said.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

----------

Devil505 (11-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.


That is FACT and no amount of RW whining, torturing English and hand wringing will change that.

We keep going over the same arguments...over and over.
I'll only continue to participate in response to new arguments.

----------


## Graham Garner

Professor Tribe is the foremost exponent on constitutional law, and his treatise is the standard text on the subject.  In the most recent edition of his work, Professor Tribe asserts that the Second Amendment protects an important right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant and that "the federal government may not disarm individuals without some unusually strong justification." See Laurence Tribe, _American Constitutional Law_, Third Ed., Vol. 1 (2000). The relevant point is that the Second Amendment does not bar the regulation of the possession, sale or transportation of firearms. Nor does the Second Amendment grant any rights, either individual or collective; and whatever rights secured under the Second Amendment are nevertheless subject to law.  That is the main point of misunderstanding by the lay public.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.


Since they are, indeed, the "Supreme Court" of the land, that is legally correct.  Ours is a nation of laws.  However, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, if that government is not fulfilling its primary function for the American people, then we have a right to do something about it regardless what the Supreme Court says.

_Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._

----------

Invayne (11-06-2014),nonsqtr (11-02-2014),Rutabaga (11-01-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

What I said, Max, is that the Supreme Court has the final word on the Constitution.  The one (and only) interpretation that counts is that of the Supreme Court.  That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; yet it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions, whether you consider them good or bad, are binding as law until overturned by the court, congressional legislation, or constitutional amendment. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in _Brown v. Allen_, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).

----------


## Devil505

> What I said, Max, is that the Supreme Court has the final word on the Constitution.  The one (and only) interpretation that counts is that of the Supreme Court.  That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; yet it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions, whether you consider them good or bad, are binding as law until overturned by the court, congressional legislation, or constitutional amendment. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in _Brown v. Allen_, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).


Some Righties keep pretending that we are arguing that the SC is always right and that we are "Appealing to authority" when we argue the *fact* that...while the SC is often wrong, it is always supreme...... short of amendment, new court ruling or rebellion of course.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Just tell it to the judge.


The 'judge' is just another corrupt part of a corrupt system... which is why SCOTUS doesn't have the final authority to determine constitutionality.

The authority of SCOTUS is stated in Article III... determining constitutionality isn't listed as one of their enumerated powers.

Allowing the federal government to determine the limits of the authority of the federal government is illogical and counterintuitive. The fact that the federal government has assumed that authority is further evidence that the US has become a tyranny.

The state should be abandoned.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, Devil, not rebellion; but amendment.  Second Amendment does not sanction taking up arms against the government.

----------


## Hansel

> That is FACT and no amount of RW whining, torturing English and hand wringing will change that.
> 
> We keep going over the same arguments...over and over.
> I'll only continue to participate in response to new arguments.


Good idea.  Have you noticed how long some of these threads are?

----------

Devil505 (11-01-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> No, Devil, not rebellion; but amendment.  Second Amendment does not sanction taking up arms against the government.


It doesn't prohibit it either.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, the law prohibits it.  18 U.S.C. § 2385 provides: 	 
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or 

  Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or 

  Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— 

  Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. 

  If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. 

  As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

----------


## Hansel

> No, Devil, not rebellion; but amendment.  Second Amendment does not sanction taking up arms against the government.


Those anarchical types need to have the NRA punch their tough shit cards,,,, twice.

Anyone who is opposed to reasonable restrictions on the types of firearms, magazines, and ammo is anti social and doesn't give a rat's tail about the well being of others. They are
self serving narrow minded fools.

The conservative movement must be pretty damned desperate to let these loonies in.  Conservatism to me includes sagacious thinking, common sense, and a regard for
the well being of the citizens.   But you couldn't tell it by reading some of these posts.

How many innocent American citizens has the government killed on average over the years?  How many innocent American citizens fall prey to gun freaks every year
or die because some child accidentally kills someone, usually a family member?

Do the math people.  I have heard this fear mongering from the gun lobby for decades and yet the slaughter of innocents continues. Those clowns like to close barn
doors after the horses have gone.

----------


## Devil505

> No, Devil, not rebellion; but amendment.  Second Amendment does not sanction taking up arms against the government.


When I talk of rebellion I'm obviously not talking of a lawful remedy.
I'm recognizing the argument of some members here that they (anonymously) claim to be willing to break the law and commit treason.....in the final analysis because they lost two Presidential elections and are throwing a verbal tantrum!

----------


## Roadmaster

Liberals are not going to get us to accept any gun control. We know they lie and their goal is to take away all guns like they did in other countries trying to convince people it's was just a few they wanted banned. Never trust a liberal.

----------


## Graham Garner

Well, Mr. roadmaster, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation.  Indeed, we now have more restrictive gun laws than ever before; and thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA, we will all find ourselves the more "well regulated."

----------


## Roadmaster

> Well, Mr. roadmaster, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation.  Indeed, we now have more restrictive gun laws than ever before; and thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA, we will all find ourselves the more "well regulated."


 We are not going to play your games like other countries did. I support the NRA.

----------


## Graham Garner

The NRA has sold us down river.  Some of us just don't know it yet.

----------


## lostbeyond

> The NRA has sold us down river.  Some of us just don't know it yet.


Sold us how?  Do you know how the communists started in East Europe?  First they took away people's guns.  Well I guess now they are ready to do it in the USA too.  Disgraceful.

----------


## Roadmaster

> The NRA has sold us down river.  Some of us just don't know it yet.


 People that don't like our country should leave. Stop coming here and trying to change our laws. Communist and liberals don't like freedom of speech, want to impose hate laws, freedom of religion, and the right to have guns. Our country was founded on these.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Sold us how?  Do you know how the communists started in East Europe?  First they took away people's guns.  Well I guess now they are ready to do it in the USA too.  Disgraceful.


 Exactly and people should stop listening to their lies.

----------


## hoytmonger

> No, the law prohibits it.  18 U.S.C. § 2385 provides:      
> Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or 
> 
>   Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or 
> 
>   Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof 
> 
>   Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. 
> 
> ...


Of course it does... a tyrannical government that fears the civilian population will ensure it's own existence by suppressing the laws of nature with the laws of men.

----------

nonsqtr (11-01-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court making decisions that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.

  If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Amazing, isn't it?  You have a short, simple, plainspoken document; and then you have a phalanx of credentialed sophists who spend LIFETIMES arguing that the plain wording of the document doesn't mean what it clearly says it means.

The Constitution, or any other legal charter or document, can ONLY work between men of goodwill and integrity who seriously want to abide by it for the common good.

It does NOT work when there are huge numbers who want to destroy it and make a life's work out of confusing the uninformed and the easily led.  NO CHARTER, CONTRACT, PEACE ACCORD can survive when there is not the general will to abide by it and the determination to enforce its terms.

The Constitution, Mister Garner, is not living and breathing - it is DEAD; and it is your ilk who've killed it.

----------


## Victory

> See? You're a conservative, it's logical to you - even intuitive.
> 
> I'm the same way, and it seems to me you either see the world this way or you don't.
> 
> In my world, if you got a problem you don't try to patch it with band-aids. You actually fix it. I can't even count the number of times in my career I was instructed by upper management to use a Band-Aid (usually for immediate financial reasons), and I kept telling 'em the cost down the line was going to be staggeringly greater but all I got was ridicule 'cause it didn't fit their political agenda. And, sure enough, two years later when the company was falling apart and they were asking everyone to give up their bonuses and take a pay cut, all I could say was "told ya".
> 
> I mean, y'know, I fix guitar amps, the old kind with vacuum tubes. When something goes wrong in one of those things, there's usually some kind of Band-Aid that'll work for a little while, but by golly I've seen Band-Aided amps light on fire and explode on stage in the middle of a gig, and I mean.... this is the middle of the gig, gnome sain'? We don't get a second chance. If that amp goes we're going to have to stop the show while we find a place that'll rent one to us - and that's IF we happen to have enough money "before" the gig (which almost never happens)... so.... there it is.
> 
> Bottom line is, it's worth taking the amp apart and doing it right, no matter how long it takes. That way you get a reliable amp, and if something goes it'll be a fluke instead of a systemic failure. If anyone wants to know the details I can start talking about the filter capacitors, y'know... people actually take the used ones out and sell 'em on eBay, and the numbnuts liberal "collectors" buy 'em. It's truly amazing the level of stupidity that's out there in this world.
> ...


Interesting that you'd say that.  I happen to OWN a tube amp--Marshall TSL 100 half stack.



It's a magnificent beast and has spoiled me rotten.

About the drugs aspect.  This is where it gets mixed.

I was surprised when after all the pot legislation came through that you couldn't be a legal gun owner and sign up for medical marijuana.  Can't say I support that particular facet of the legislation.  I'm all in favor of alcohol for recreational use and I don't see me giving up my guns for the sake of a beer.

But anti-depressants?  Voluntarily give up?  I really don't know.  You are absolutely correct in highlighting the correlation between anti-depressants and mass shootings.  I don't think the same correlation exists for pot or alcohol so. . .I LEAN towards anti-depressant users must surrender their guns.  The reason I don't embrace it is because of the slippery slope and because of the unalienable right.

It DOES however, underscore my desire to have far FAR more gun owners in America.

----------

nonsqtr (11-01-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> That is FACT and no amount of RW whining, torturing English and hand wringing will change that.



Horseshit.

That's an outright lie and you keep repeating it.

Why do you keep lying to us, Devil?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Professor Tribe is the foremost exponent on constitutional law, and his treatise is the standard text on the subject.  In the most recent edition of his work, Professor Tribe asserts that the Second Amendment protects an important right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant and that "the federal government may not disarm individuals without some unusually strong justification." See Laurence Tribe, _American Constitutional Law_, Third Ed., Vol. 1 (2000). The relevant point is that the Second Amendment does not bar the regulation of the possession, sale or transportation of firearms. Nor does the Second Amendment grant any rights, either individual or collective; and whatever rights secured under the Second Amendment are nevertheless subject to law.  That is the main point of misunderstanding by the lay public.


*No* amendment grants any rights.

WTF kind of lawyer are you, anyway?

You don't seem to understand the *most* basic things about our political system.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Since they are, indeed, the "Supreme Court" of the land, that is legally correct.  Ours is a nation of laws.  However, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, if that government is not fulfilling its primary function for the American people, then we have a right to do something about it regardless what the Supreme Court says.
> 
> _Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._


The People make the law.

The Supreme Court only interprets the law *that the People made.*

Now which liberal idiot here is going to tell me something different?

----------


## nonsqtr

> What I said, Max, is that the Supreme Court has the final word on the Constitution.  The one (and only) interpretation that counts is that of the Supreme Court.  That said, it is certainly possible - humans being fallible - for the Supreme Court to err in its judgment; yet it must be recognized that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions, whether you consider them good or bad, are binding as law until overturned by the court, congressional legislation, or constitutional amendment. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, Concurring Opinion in _Brown v. Allen_, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).


Arguing "within" the law again, which is *not what we're talking about.*

----------


## nonsqtr

> When I talk of rebellion I'm obviously not talking of a lawful remedy.


At least you're smart enough to include the option that Graham conveniently omitted.




> I'm recognizing the argument of some members here that they (anonymously) claim to be willing to break the law and commit treason.....in the final analysis because they lost two Presidential elections and are throwing a verbal tantrum!


Devil, you haven't been listening.

You've been specifically told over a dozen times that the law is corrupt and it's not a partisan thing.

----------


## lostbeyond

> I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court making decisions that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.
> 
>   If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.


Sounds like a liberal wiesel.  The 2nd Amendment is not a state constitution.  It is not a secondary law to be subjugated under federal agencies.

----------

Victory (11-01-2014)

----------


## goosey

ATT0007110.jpg

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-01-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court making decisions that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.
> 
>   If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.


Now you're making a Ninth and Tenth amendment argument?

I can't even believe my ears, Graham.

Here you arguing with me about a shit-for-brains Court that somehow "forgot" to incorporate the Second Amendment for 150 years, and now you're suggesting that we should rely on the Ninth and Tenth.

 :Geez:

----------

Victory (11-01-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I’ll tell you up front that I’m not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I don’t want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court making decisions that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.
> 
>   If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here, the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.


This is incredible!  Turn in your guns if you are not a proponent of the 2nd Amendment!

Why on earth would you "transfer" our right to own and bear arms from the rock solid PROTECTION of the 2nd Amendment to the two most abused and ignored amendments in the Constitution?

Could it be that you are actually advocating a gun grab by trying to weaken the pro-gun argument?

I find it very interesting that up until this point you have been arguing for every written and unwritten law that is an assault on the 9th and 10th amendments but now suddenly you'd like to frame individual gun owner rights inside an argument of supporting those very same amendments.

Can you explain this apparent contradiction?

----------


## Victory

> The NRA has sold us down river.  Some of us just don't know it yet.


They seem to be doing a pretty good job of shoring up the 2nd Amendment.

Where is the lobby group that shores up the 9th and 10th amendments?  Nowhere?  

And so they are abused.

----------


## Devil505

This topic is just hysteria now.
Waste of time.

----------


## lostbeyond

> Attachment 6441


... the criminals including some government "agencies/agents".  

But the liberal law enforcement will then ask you why you didn't use reasonable force to stop your burglar instead of using your gun?  America is so stupid, that they will send you to jail and not the criminal, by law.

----------

Invayne (11-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> This topic is just hysteria now.
> Waste of time.


Translation:  I'm getting my ass kicked on this issue and will be leaving now.

----------

Invayne (11-06-2014),nonsqtr (11-01-2014),Victory (11-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Translation:  I'm getting my ass kicked on this issue and will be leaving now.


Oh please!
You guys lost this debate 40 pages ago.

----------


## nonsqtr

> This topic is just hysteria now.
> Waste of time.


Ha ha - I'll accept that as a concession.  :Smile: 

Nice try, gun-grabbers.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Invayne (11-06-2014),Max Rockatansky (11-01-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oh please!
> You guys lost this debate 40 pages ago.


I still have my guns, high capacity magazines and Liberals aren't knocking at my door saying "Turn'em in!" so I think we're still winning.

----------

goosey (11-01-2014),nonsqtr (11-01-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

> Where does the 2nd Amendment say that inmates in an insane asylum or prison can have their right to bear arms infringed?



Ok, now you are just being stupid.

People incarcerated and convicted for serious crimes give up all kinds of basic rights. Your person and your cell can be searched anytime. Violating the basic rights of other citizens to be safe and secure means you lose certain rights. Like being free in a public place to do as you please. That is the whole point of incarceration or mental institution. 

Would you care to argue to the contrary I would love to see it in a court of law. I would have a good laugh!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## RMNIXON

> I still have my guns, high capacity magazines and Liberals aren't knocking at my door saying "Turn'em in!" so I think we're still winning.




That old Bitch is still trying to ride a shooting that was the result of her own parties dirty dealings in San Francisco. It had nothing to do with a man being Gay and everything to do with corrupt party politics.

----------


## Devil505

> Ok, now you are just being stupid.
> 
> People incarcerated and convicted for serious crimes give up all kinds of basic rights. Your person and your cell can be searched anytime. Violating the basic rights of other citizens to be safe and secure means you lose certain rights. Like being free in a public place to do as you please. That is the whole point of incarceration or mental institution. 
> 
> Would you care to argue to the contrary I would love to see it in a court of law. I would have a good laugh!


Translation: So common sense *IS* needed when interpreting the Constitution after all.
The 2nd A is unambiguous and only says the  "People's" right to bears arms shall not be infringed. (Inmates are people)

*Therefore: The absurd argument that if it's not written in the Constitution's text it's unconstitutional is pure BS.

The Constitution is not clear and needs interpretation and the SCOTUS is the only entity with that legal power.

The End
*

----------


## East of the Beast

> Translation: So common sense *IS* needed when interpreting the Constitution after all.
> The 2nd A is unambiguous and only says the  "People's" right to bears arms shall not be infringed. (Inmates are people)
> 
> *Therefore: The absurd argument that if it's not written in the Constitution's text it's unconstitutional is pure BS.
> 
> The Constitution is not clear and needs interpretation and the SCOTUS is the only entity with that legal power.
> 
> The End
> *


As with all lib logic that is a stretch.Inmates are taken out of society and forfeit their rights.I don't need 9 politically motivated glorified lawyers to tell me that.

----------


## Devil505

> As with all lib logic that is a stretch.Inmates are taken out of society and forfeit their rights.


Where does it say that in the 2nd A? (it doesn't..... therefore denying inmates their right to bear arms is unconstitutional....right?)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Those anarchical types need to have the NRA punch their tough shit cards,,,, twice.
> 
> Anyone who is opposed to reasonable restrictions on the types of firearms, magazines, and ammo is anti social and doesn't give a rat's tail about the well being of others. They are
> self serving narrow minded fools.
> 
> The conservative movement must be pretty damned desperate to let these loonies in.  Conservatism to me includes sagacious thinking, common sense, and a regard for
> the well being of the citizens.   But you couldn't tell it by reading some of these posts.
> 
> How many innocent American citizens has the government killed on average over the years?  How many innocent American citizens fall prey to gun freaks every year
> ...


You're missing the point.

The point is, *your* solution doesn't work.

Not only doesn't it work, it's also entirely un-Constitutional.

So, you're going to have to do better, silly lib.  :Wink:

----------


## Graham Garner

We now have Supreme Court decisions that will serve as the basis for federal preemption of state gun laws.  See, e.g., _United States v. Chovan_, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013); Cert. Denied (Oct. 6, 2014).

----------


## nonsqtr

> The 2nd A is unambiguous and only says the  "People's" right to bears arms shall not be infringed. (Inmates are people)


The concept is really simple, Devil. It doesn't say "a person", it says "the People". That means, we need to be able to police ourselves. If "a person" threatens "the Peoples'" right to bear arms then the Court gets to decide how far that one person can be "regulated", as you say.

But this is a tremendous power, and it has to be used responsibly. It can't be used for political purposes, such a thing would make a mockery or the law and cause it to lose respect in the eyes of millions.

The right of "The People"... that means most people, most of the time, should be able to acquire and keep and carry a firearm without any problems. And currently, we "regulate ourselves" by keeping felons and crazies away from the weapons. Those few individuals are excluded so the right of "the People" is not infringed.

'Kay? Are we on the same page so far?

So like, if we're talking about the outlying "*may* be dangerous" cases, like pot smokers here in the state of CA, or possibly the antidepressant equation we were talking about, then maybe (maybe) that's reasonable regulation.

But if we're talking about restricting the ability to purchase and bear for every single American for no other reason than some bleeding-heart liberal like Hansel can't stomach human nature, then that is clearly a violation of both the letter and the intent of the Constitution.

In that case we would be talking about disarming millions of good people (the ones who wear white hats) for the benefit of one or a few bleeding-heart individuals, and that's bass-ackwards, that's not "promoting the General Welfare".

Devil: if we do end up having problems with Islamists crossing our southern or northern borders, you'll want to be armed won't you?

I'll tell you what, I'm not afraid of any towelheads but if I see one comin' for me I'm sure as hell going to shoot him before he gets there. Gnome sain'? And I'll be doing my country and my countrymen a favor by doing that, in spite of how any liberal judge may feel about it.

----------

Victory (11-01-2014)

----------


## Victory

> This topic is just hysteria now.
> Waste of time.


Can't stand the logic?

----------


## Devil505

> The concept is really simple, Devil. It doesn't say "a person", it says "the People". That means, we need to be able to police ourselves. If "a person" threatens "the Peoples'" right to bear arms then the Court gets to decide how far that one person can be "regulated", as you say.
> 
> But this is a tremendous power, and it has to be used responsibly. It can't be used for political purposes, such a thing would make a mockery or the law and cause it to lose respect in the eyes of millions.
> 
> The right of "The People"... that means most people, most of the time, should be able to acquire and keep and carry a firearm without any problems. And currently, we "regulate ourselves" by keeping felons and crazies away from the weapons. Those few individuals are excluded so the right of "the People" is not infringed.
> 
> 'Kay? Are we on the same page so far?


Funny but I don't see any of your eloquent wording in the actual text of the 2nd A.
Those are nonsqtr's words...not the founders.





> So like, if we're talking about the outlying "*may* be dangerous" cases, like pot smokers here in the state of CA, or possibly the antidepressant equation we were talking about, then maybe (maybe) that's reasonable regulation.
> 
> But if we're talking about restricting the ability to purchase and bear for every single American for no other reason than some bleeding-heart liberal like Hansel can't stomach human nature, then that is clearly a violation of both the letter and the intent of the Constitution.
> 
> In that case we would be talking about disarming millions of good people (the ones who wear white hats) for the benefit of one or a few bleeding-heart individuals, and that's bass-ackwards, that's not "promoting the General Welfare".
> 
> Devil: if we do end up having problems with Islamists crossing our southern or northern borders, you'll want to be armed won't you?
> 
> I'll tell you what, I'm not afraid of any towelheads but if I see one comin' for me I'm sure as hell going to shoot him before he gets there. Gnome sain'? And I'll be doing my country and my countrymen a favor by doing that, in spite of how any liberal judge may feel about it.


This is not a debate about should we be armed.
This is a debate about the absurd argument that the Constitution needs no interpretation or application of common-sense.

Here are the words again:

*Amendment II*
*A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of* *the people** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
*

Unless you can prove that insane or criminal inmates aren't people, you're argument is unconstitutional.

----------


## Victory

> Translation: Regardless of the exact words in the Constitution, common-sense should prevail and following the exact wording is myopic insanity.
> 
> Thanks....that's what I've been saying!


Keeping guns and sharp objects from insane people is common sense.

Limiting the number of rounds a lawful person can carry in a magazine. . .is nonsense.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Funny but I don't see any of your eloquent wording in the actual text of the 2nd A.
> Those are nonsqtr's words...not the founders.


Absolutely. They're my words. I take full responsibility for them.  :Smile: 





> This is not a debate about should we be armed.
> This is a debate about some Rightie's absurd argument that the Constitution needs no interpretation or application of common-sense.
> 
> Here are the words again:
> 
> *Amendment II*
> *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of* *the people** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> *
> 
> Unless you can prove that insane or criminal inmates aren't people, you're argument is unconstitutional.


Allow me to suggest something different.

So far, we've been focusing on the "firearms" part of the equation.

Instead, it seems to me, the real issue is the word "power" (look at the thread title).

The real issue in all these discussions is *the responsible use of power*.

The real issue is the responsible use of the power *that We the People have granted*, by the individuals we've granted that power to.

And even more than that, it's the responsible use of power *by you and me*.

----------


## Devil505

> Keeping guns and sharp objects from insane people is common sense.
> 
> Limiting the number of rounds a lawful person can carry in a magazine. . .is nonsense.


They're both common sense and there are 100's of dead innocent people to prove it.

----------


## Devil505

> Absolutely. They're my words. I take full responsibility for them.


Good.







> Allow me to suggest something different.
> 
> So far, we've been focusing on the "firearms" part of the equation.
> 
> Instead, it seems to me, the real issue is the word "power" (look at the thread title).
> 
> The real issue in all these discussions is *the responsible use of power*.
> 
> The real issue is the responsible use of the power *that We the People have granted*, by the individuals we've granted that power to.
> ...


Agreed .....but the 2nd A does not read:" *Amendment II
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed**.....as long as they act responsibly."*

----------


## Victory

> Funny but I don't see any of your eloquent wording in the actual text of the 2nd A.
> Those are nonsqtr's words...not the founders.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a debate about should we be armed.
> *This is a debate about the absurd argument that the Constitution needs no interpretation or application of common-sense*.


No it's not.  You can bring that up if you want but that's not what the debate is about.  Check the OP.

There is NOTHING "common sensical" about banning high cap magazines.  If you want to forbid felons and insane people from owning them just like they are forbidden to keep and bear firearms then you've got me interested.

You wanna have that discussion?  Would you be willing to. . .(wait for it). . ._compromise?_

----------


## Devil505

> No it's not.  You can bring that up if you want but that's not what the debate is about.  Check the OP.
> 
> There is NOTHING "common sensical" about banning high cap magazines.  If you want to forbid felons and insane people from owning them just like they are forbidden to keep and bear firearms then you've got me interested.
> 
> You wanna have that discussion?  Would you be willing to. . .(wait for it). . ._compromise?_


This topic's point was never clear to me but morphed long ago into a broader discussion of gun ownership in this country.
I'll be willing to participate in any gun control/common-sense discussion but if it's going to be merely the same arguments we've been dealing with here...I don't think there's much to ad.

Start a thread but here's my bottom line:
It's so easy and quick to change magazines that the only people I can think of that may not have the time to do so are soldiers under attack and mass murderers who want to kill as many people as rapidly as they can before someone stops them while they try to reload.







*Teacher tried to stop shooting at Washington state high ...*
www.foxnews.com/.../motives-unclear-in-wash-state-h...
Fox News Channel
Oct 25, 2014 - A newly-hired social studies teacher intercepted a *gunman* as he *tried to reload during* a deadly *shooting* at a Washington state high school on ...





*Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia, the free ...*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_massacre
*When* students and teachers *tried* to quiet him, Ferguson started threatening them, .... away in the train did not realize a *shooting* had occurred until after the train *stopped*. ... *While reloading* his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!You visited this page





*Teacher who tried to stop Washington school shooter Jaylen ...*
www.cbsnews.com/.../teacher-who-*tried*-to-*stop*-washington-sc...
CBS News
Oct 25, 2014 - Teacher who *tried* to *stop* Washington school *shooting* credited as hero ... He *tried* either *reloading* or *tried*aiming at her. .... cannot think or make decisions. this is crucial to understand *when* assigning blame and searching for ...





*Tucson Shooting: Patricia Maisch Describes Stopping ...*
abcnews.go.com  Politics 
ABC News
Jan 9, 2011 - Next Video Female Hero *Stopped Shooter* From *Reloading* ... by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he *tried to reload*. ... Maisch said Badger and Sulzgeber both sat on the *gunman while* she held his ankles down.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Your opinion is at odds with mine and the SCOTUS who's opinion happens to be law and they say that Regulation is not infringement.
> Where in the 2nd A does it say criminals/whackos don't have the right to bear arms?


You keep insisting opinions are law.

Where in the Constituion is that written?

----------


## Network

States empower epic deth machines
That much is proven

They justify it through "constitutions" that allow stealing from a large population of people.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Professor Tribe is the foremost exponent on constitutional law,


You mean like he's the -3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375  105820974944592307816406286 20899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384  4609550582231725359408128481 11745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442  8810975665933446128475648233 78678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821  3393607260249141273724587006 60631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036  0011330530548820466521384146 95194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261  1793105118548074462379962749 56735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065  6643086021394946395224737190 70217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766  9405132000568127145263560827 78577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014  6549585371050792279689258923 54201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996  0518707211349999998372978049 95105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230  8253344685035261931188171010 00313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825  3490428755468731159562863882 35378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661  1195909216420198938095257201 06548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296  8995773622599413891249721775 28347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785  5889075098381754637464939319 25506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766  0104710181942955596198946767 83744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906  9491293313677028989152104752 16205696602405803815019351125338243003558764024749  6473263914199272604269922796 78235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297455  5706749838505494588586926995 69092721079750930295532116534498720275596023648066  5499119881834797753566369807 42654252786255181841757467289097777279380008164706  0016145249192173217214772350 14144197356854816136115735255213347574184946843852  3323907394143334547762416862 51898356948556209921922218427255025425688767179049  4601653466804988627232791786 08578438382796797668145410095388378636095068006422  5125205117392984896084128488 62694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494  5047123713786960956364371917 28746776465757396241389086583264599581339047802759  0099465764078951269468398352 59570982582262052248940772671947826848260147699090  2640136394437455305068203496 25245174939965143142980919065925093722169646151570  9858387410597885959772975498 93016175392846813826868386894277415599185592524595  3959431049972524680845987273 64469584865383673622262609912460805124388439045124  4136549762780797715691435997 70012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864  8158456028506016842739452267 46767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488  6230577456498035593634568174 32411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314566  9136867228748940560101503308 61792868092087476091782493858900971490967598526136  5549781893129784821682998948 72265880485756401427047755513237964145152374623436  4542858444795265867821051141 35473573952311342716610213596953623144295248493718  7110145765403590279934403742 00731057853906219838744780847848968332144571386875  1943506430218453191048481005 37061468067491927819119793995206141966342875444064  3745123718192179998391015919 56181467514269123974894090718649423196156794520809  5146550225231603881930142093 76213785595663893778708303906979207734672218256259  9661501421503068038447734549 20260541466592520149744285073251866600213243408819  0710486331734649651453905796 26856100550810665879699816357473638405257145910289  7064140110971206280439039759 51567715770042033786993600723055876317635942187312  5147120532928191826186125867 32157919841484882916447060957527069572209175671167  2291098169091528017350671274 85832228718352093539657251210835791513698820914442  1006751033467110314126711136 99086585163983150197016515116851714376576183515565  0884909989859982387345528331 63550764791853589322618548963213293308985706420467  5259070915481416549859461637 18027098199430992448895757128289059232332609729971  2084433573265489382391193259 74636673058360414281388303203824903758985243744170  2913276561809377344403070746 92112019130203303801976211011004492932151608424448  5963766983895228684783123552 65821314495768572624334418930396864262434107732269  7802807318915441101044682325 27162010526522721116603966655730925471105578537634  6682065310989652691862056476 93125705863566201855810072936065987648611791045334  8850346113657686753249441668 03962657978771855608455296541266540853061434443185  8676975145661406800700237877 65913440171274947042056223053899456131407112700040  7854733269939081454664645880 79727082668306343285878569830523580893306575740679  5457163775254202114955761581 40025012622859413021647155097925923099079654737612  5517656751357517829666454779 17450112996148903046399471329621073404375189573596  1458901938971311179042978285 64750320319869151402870808599048010941214722131794  7647772622414254854540332157 18530614228813758504306332175182979866223717215916  0771669254748738986654949450 11465406284336639379003976926567214638530673609657  1209180763832716641627488880 07869256029022847210403172118608204190004229661711  9637792133757511495950156604 96318629472654736425230817703675159067350235072835  4056704038674351362222477158 91504953098444893330963408780769325993978054193414  4737744184263129860809988868 74132604721569516239658645730216315981931951673538  1297416772947867242292465436 68009806769282382806899640048243540370141631496589  7940924323789690706977942236 25082216889573837986230015937764716512289357860158  8161755782973523344604281512 62720373431465319777741603199066554187639792933441  9521541341899485444734567383 16249934191318148092777710386387734317720754565453  2207770921201905166096280490 92636019759882816133231666365286193266863360627356  7630354477628035045077723554 71058595487027908143562401451718062464362679456127  5318134078330336254232783944 97538243720583531147711992606381334677687969597030  9833913077109870408591337464 14428227726346594704745878477872019277152807317679  0770715721344473060570073349 24369311383504931631284042512192565179806941135280  1314701304781643788518529092 85452011658393419656213491434159562586586557055269  0496520985803385072242648293 97285847831630577775606888764462482468579260395352  7734803048029005876075825104 74709164396136267604492562742042083208566119062545  4337213153595845068772460290 16187667952406163425225771954291629919306455377991  4037340432875262888963995879 47572917464263574552540790914513571113694109119393  2519107602082520261879853188 77058429725916778131496990090192116971737278476847  2686084900337702424291651300 50051683233643503895170298939223345172201381280696  5011784408745196012122859937 16231301711444846409038906449544400619869075485160  2632750529834918740786680881 83385102283345085048608250393021332197155184306354  5500766828294930413776552793 97517546139539846833936383047461199665385815384205  6853386218672523340283087112 32827892125077126294632295639898989358211674562701  0218356462201349671518819097 30381198004973407239610368540664319395097901906996  3955245300545058068550195673 02292191393391856803449039820595510022635353619204  1994745538593810234395544959 77837790237421617271117236434354394782218185286240  8514006660443325888569867054 31547069657474585503323233421073015459405165537906  8662733379958511562578432298 82737231989875714159578111963583300594087306812160  2876496286744604774649159950 54973742562690104903778198683593814657412680492564  8798556145372347867330390468 83834363465537949864192705638729317487233208376011  2302991136793862708943879936 20162951541337142489283072201269014754668476535761  6477379467520049075715552781 96536213239264061601363581559074220202031872776052  7721900556148425551879253034 35139844253223415762336106425063904975008656271095  3591946589751413103482276930 62474353632569160781547818115284366795706110861533  1504452127473924544945423682 88606134084148637767009612071512491404302725386076  4823634143346235189757664521 64137679690314950191085759844239198629164219399490  7236234646844117394032659184 04437805133389452574239950829659122850855582157250  3107125701266830240292952522 01187267675622041542051618416348475651699981161410  1002996078386909291603028840 02691041407928862150784245167090870006992821206604  1837180653556725253256753286 12910424877618258297651579598470356222629348600341  5872298053498965022629174878 82027342092222453398562647669149055628425039127577  1028402799806636582548892648 80254566101729670266407655904290994568150652653053  7182941270336931378517860904 07086671149655834343476933857817113864558736781230  1458768712660348913909562009 93936103102916161528813843790990423174733639480457  5931493140529763475748119356 70911013775172100803155902485309066920376719220332  2909433467685142214477379393 75170344366199104033751117354719185504644902636551  2816228824462575916333039107 22538374218214088350865739177150968288747826569959  9574490661758344137522397096 83408005355984917541738188399944697486762655165827  6584835884531427756879002909 51702835297163445621296404352311760066510124120065  9755851276178583829204197484 42360800719304576189323492292796501987518721272675  0798125547095890455635792122 10333466974992356302549478024901141952123828153091  1407907386025152274299581807 24716259166854513331239480494707911915326734302824  4186041426363954800044800267 04962482017928964766975831832713142517029692348896  2766844032326092752496035799 64692565049368183609003238092934595889706953653494  0603402166544375589004563288 22505452556405644824651518754711962184439658253375  4388569094113031509526179378 00297412076651479394259029896959469955657612186561  9673378623625612521632086286 92221032748892186543648022967807057656151446320469  2790682120738837781423356282 36089632080682224680122482611771858963814091839036  7367222088832151375560037279 83940041529700287830766709444745601345564172543709  0697939612257142989467154357 84687886144458123145935719849225284716050492212424  7014121478057345510500801908 69960330276347870810817545011930714122339086639383  3952942578690507643100638351 98343893415961318543475464955697810382930971646514  3840700707360411237359984345 22516105070270562352660127648483084076118301305279  3205427462865403603674532865 10570658748822569815793678976697422057505968344086  9735020141020672358502007245 22563265134105592401902742162484391403599895353945  9094407046912091409387001264 56001623742880210927645793106579229552498872758461  0126483699989225695968815920 56001016552563756785667227966198857827948488558343  9751874454551296563443480396 64205579829368043522027709842942325330225763418070  3947699415979159453006975214 82933665556615678736400536665641654732170439035213  2954352916941459904160875320 18683793702348886894791510716378529023452924407736  5949563051007421087142613497 45956151384987137570471017879573104229690666702144  9863746459528082436944578977 23300487647652413390759204340196340391147320233807  1509522201068256342747164602 43354400515212669324934196739770415956837535551667  3027390074972973635496453328 88698440611964961627734495182736955882207573551766  5158985519098666539354948106 88732068599075407923424023009259007017319603622547  5647894064754834664776041146 32339056513433068449539790709030234604614709616968  8688501408347040546074295869 91382966824681857103188790652870366508324319744047  7185567893482308943106828702 72280973624809399627060747264553992539944280811373  6943388729406307926159599546 26246297070625948455690347119729964090894180595343  9325123623550813494900436427 85271383159125689892951964272875739469142725343669  4153236100453730488198551706 59412173524625895487301676002988659257866285612496  6552353382942878542534048308 33070165372285635591525347844598183134112900199920  5981352205117336585640782648 49427644113763938669248031183644536985891754426473  9988228462184490087776977631 27957226726555625962825427653183001340709223343657  7916012809317940171859859993 38492354956400570995585611349802524990669842330173  5035804408116855265311709957 08994273287092584878944364600504108922669178352587  0785951298344172953519537885 53457374260859029081765155780390594640873506123226  1120093731080485485263572282 57682034160504846627750450031262008007998049254853  4694146977516493270950493463 93824322271885159740547021482897111777923761225788  7347718819682546298126868581 70507402725502633290449762778944236216741191862694  3965067151577958675648239939 17604260176338704549901761436412046921823707648878  3419689686118155815873606293 86038101712158552726683008238340465647588040513808  0163363887421637140643549556 18689641122821407533026551004241048967835285882902  4367090488711819090949453314 42182876618103100735477054981596807720094746961343  6092861484941785017180779306 81085469000944589952794243981392135055864221964834  9151263901280383200109773868 06628779239718014613432445726400973742570073592100  3154150893679300816998053652 02760072774967458400283624053460372634165542590276  0183484030681138185510597970 56640075094260878857357960373245141467867036880988  0609716425849759513806930944 94015154222219432913021739125383559150310033303251  1174915696917450271494331515 58854039221640972291011290355218157628232831823425  4832611191280092825256190205 

of exponents?

Yeah, I could agree that Larry Tribe is e^-10000 pi, which is close enough to zero for it to make no difference.

That left wing maggot can lie, but he's wrong about the Constitution. And if you say he supports federal gun controls, he's just as wrong as you are, which is completely.

----------


## Network



----------


## Sled Dog

> Can you link to that wording in the 2nd amendment? (I can't seem to find it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my argument and destroying yours! 
> 
> *The constitution is not a suicide pact and nowhere in it does it prohibit the application of common sense!
> 100 round drum magazines have no place in civilian society.*


Jesus, I post you the Fifth Amendment.  You pretend to be a former law enforcement officer.  Why the fuck is the disposition of criminals such a fucking mystery to you?

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, Devil, not rebellion; but amendment. Second Amendment does not sanction taking up arms against the government.


Yes it does.

That's the only reason it's in the Constitution.  Read Federalist 29 like a good boy.  I've already told you about it enough times, it's way past time you stopped pretending it doesn't exist.

----------


## Network

100rnd magazines have a place in societies where pot-stirring satanists rule.

----------

Invayne (11-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Those anarchical types need to have the NRA punch their tough shit cards,,,, twice.
> 
> Anyone who is opposed to reasonable restrictions on the types of firearms, magazines, and ammo is anti social and doesn't give a rat's tail about the well being of others.


No.

They're anti-socialist.   And that really bothers you for obvious reasons.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Ill tell you up front that Im not a proponent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. I am a very serious gun owner (I have a lot of time and money invested in guns and their use); and I dont want my rights "regulated" under the Second Amendment. Nor do I want the Supreme Court making decisions that can only lead to lessening the rights of everyone.


Wow.  That's the same steaming pile of horsehit the Rodents pull when they claim they wouldn't murder THEIR unborn children but don't want make any foolish judgements on other sluts who do.

----------


## Devil505

> You keep insisting opinions are law.
> 
> Where in the Constituion is that written?


Right next to the part that says inmates can have guns.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Translation: So common sense *IS* needed when interpreting the Constitution after all.
> The 2nd A is unambiguous and only says the "People's" right to bears arms shall not be infringed. (Inmates are people)
> 
> *Therefore: The absurd argument that if it's not written in the Constitution's text it's unconstitutional is pure BS.
> 
> The Constitution is not clear and needs interpretation and the SCOTUS is the only entity with that legal power.
> 
> The End
> *


It's what you fascists ALWAYS say when the wording of the Constitution is PERFECTLY CLEAR...and not what you want to see.

The Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the federal government cannot fund education.  So you people lie about an imaginary "General Welfar Clause".

The Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the federal government cannot take over the health insurance industry.  So you people lie again about an imaginary "General Welfar Clause".

The Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the federal government cannot abridge the free exercise of religion.  So you people say that businesses are different and not protected by the First Amendment.  Which is bullshit.

The Constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that the federal government cannot proscribe substances foolish people use for self-entertainment.   The fact that Prohibition was passed only after a Constitutional Amendment and quickly eradicated by a Constittuional Amendment makes this doubly plain.  Yet you spent an entire career violating people's rights in the name of drug interdiction.    And you expect ANYONE to believe YOUR self-serving ass has either any clue what the Constitution actually means or any inclination to promote those truths?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Right next to the part that says inmates can have guns.


Dear d---ass.  

You were told the Fifth Amendment exists and that the Fifth Amendment totally wipes out the deliberate stupidity of your argument.

You were told this by me.

Why do you persist in your ignorance when not once, in the entire history of the world, have your arguments ever survived contact with huskies or mayors?

----------


## Network

The constitution says that Ben Franklin was in the Hellfire club

America and the rest of the world would be better off without 1776


*Illuminati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*The Illuminati movement was founded on May 1, 1776* in Ingolstadt, Upper Bavaria as .... A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary _America_.




coin-cidence

----------


## Sled Dog

> The concept is really simple, Devil. It doesn't say "a person", it says "the People". That means, we need to be able to police ourselves. If "a person" threatens "the Peoples'" right to bear arms then the Court gets to decide how far that one person can be "regulated", as you say.
> 
> But this is a tremendous power, and it has to be used responsibly. It can't be used for political purposes, such a thing would make a mockery or the law and cause it to lose respect in the eyes of millions.
> 
> The right of "The People"... that means most people, most of the time, should be able to acquire and keep and carry a firearm without any problems. And currently, we "regulate ourselves" by keeping felons and crazies away from the weapons. Those few individuals are excluded so the right of "the People" is not infringed.
> 
> 'Kay? Are we on the same page so far?
> 
> So like, if we're talking about the outlying "*may* be dangerous" cases, like pot smokers here in the state of CA, or possibly the antidepressant equation we were talking about, then maybe (maybe) that's reasonable regulation.
> ...


Since you claim to be a lawyer, can you explain why neither you nor anyone else on this board can understand the relationship between convicting a man for crimes under the Fifth  Amendment and the simultaneous loss of second amendment rights he suffers as a consequence?

Am I the only one here than can take two peices of the Constitution together to refute one King Ebola-ass kissing fascist troll employing empty arguments intended to confound ninth-graders?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Since you claim to be a lawyer, can you explain why neither you nor anyone else on this board can understand the relationship between convicting a man for crimes under the Fifth  Amendment and the simultaneous loss of second amendment rights he suffers as a consequence?
> 
> Am I the only one here than can take two peices of the Constitution together to refute one King Ebola-ass kissing fascist troll employing empty arguments intended to confound ninth-graders?


Hey gimme a break, I was just reaching out to potential ex-liberal. (Besides the other guy's the lawyer, I'm the pot-smoking gun nut).  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Victory

> This topic's point was never clear to me but morphed long ago into a broader discussion of gun ownership in this country.
> I'll be willing to participate in any gun control/common-sense discussion but if it's going to be merely the same arguments we've been dealing with here...I don't think there's much to ad.
> 
> Start a thread but here's my bottom line:
> It's so easy and quick to change magazines that the only people I can think of that may not have the time to do so are soldiers under attack and mass murderers who want to kill as many people as rapidly as they can before someone stops them while they try to reload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To deny the heroes in these examples of superior firepower in stopping these maniacs defies common sense.

Do you realize that Jeanne Assam used all 10 rounds in her gun and STILL Matthew Murray was alive?  The fatal round was self-inflicted.  A ten round magazine put a hero's life in grave risk.  And here you sit fat, dumb, and happy with limiting magazines to ten rounds.

----------


## Victory

> They're both common sense and there are 100's of dead innocent people to prove it.


High cap magazines do not make people insane.

----------


## Victory

Hey Devil, here's another one.

The guy can't stop making sense.




Corollary:  You are being suckered in by the media by focusing in on Jared Laughner, Adam Lanza, and the latest asshole from Washington.

Would you have known who Jeanne Assam is had I never told you?  Oh yeah.  Never mind.  You already said you never heard of her.

Which only proves my point.

----------


## nonsqtr

> High cap magazines do not make people insane.


 :Smile: 

Yeah. You gotta love the verbiage around this stuff. Gun "nut". Implying of course that anyone who doesn't consent to be disarmed is insane.  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

And on the flip side we have the "jack-booted thugs", y'know... what was it - oh yeah, "brownshirts".  :Wink: 

For the first time in fifty years, we may have an actual threat on our borders (I count the Cuba missile crisis as an "actual threat"), and suddenly the gun-grabbers are back trying to press for stricter controls.

These very same people (the Democrats, including the administration) are selling American weapons to every Tom Dick and Harry on the planet, including the bad guys, and here they are trying to restrict the political rights of American citizens. Everyone else gets weapons but not us, is that it?

What would happen if we suddenly start seeing more of these hatchet attacks, like the ones in NY and DC recently? What if that kind of thing "goes viral"? I mean, this isn't like that guy in Ferguson who actually escaped the angry mob, this is more like a guy with a hatchet is up your butt trying to kill you. You'd limit the victim to a .22 with six rounds or less?

I favor a decentralization of power and capability. One of the good things about America is that lots of people have weapons and radios and airplanes and stuff like that. "Think globally, act locally". If power goes out it'll be out in your neighborhood, and what goes on over the hill may or may not be significant.

I was reading about a town near the border where the citizens finally got so fed up they took the law into their own hands, they tied up the police chief and the mayor and all the corrupt city officials (and the judges too) and started over.

You know.... this is reality, anything could happen.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yeah. You gotta love the verbiage around this stuff. Gun "nut". Implying of course that anyone who doesn't consent to be disarmed is insane. 
> 
> And on the flip side we have the "jack-booted thugs", y'know... what was it - oh yeah, "brownshirts". 
> 
> For the first time in fifty years, we may have an actual threat on our borders (I count the Cuba missile crisis as an "actual threat"), and suddenly the gun-grabbers are back trying to press for stricter controls.
> 
> These very same people (the Democrats, including the administration) are selling American weapons to every Tom Dick and Harry on the planet, including the bad guys, and here they are trying to restrict the political rights of American citizens. Everyone else gets weapons but not us, is that it?
> 
> What would happen if we suddenly start seeing more of these hatchet attacks, like the ones in NY and DC recently? What if that kind of thing "goes viral"? I mean, this isn't like that guy in Ferguson who actually escaped the angry mob, this is more like a guy with a hatchet is up your butt trying to kill you. You'd limit the victim to a .22 with six rounds or less?
> ...



Pay no attention to what the Rodents pretend they want NOW.

Sure, they want to prevent people from having more than ten rounds in a clip.

That's because they don't want them to have any rounds at all.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Pay no attention to what the Rodents pretend they want NOW.
> 
> Sure, they want to prevent people from having more than ten rounds in a clip.
> 
> That's because they don't want them to have any rounds at all.


Yeah. In the liberal mind "empty clip" equates with "powerless".  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

On the other hand, registration is usually the first step to confiscation.

And, when it comes right down to it, I'd rather my friends and neighbors be armed. 

I'm willing to take the risk, of one of 'em flipping out someday. It's not likely, but I recognize it might happen.

See, most of my friends and neighbors are decent Americans and they know how to control themselves. "Most" of 'em don't panic when something goes wrong, they're not going to head straight for the gun safe. That kind of thing is usually reserved for medicated teenagers who can't get laid. Sure there's the occasional lunatic, you find 'em everywhere (even at the Chicago airport where the guy set the air traffic control computers on fire 'cause he was pissed off at his boss - they're "just now" getting 'em back online again).

----------


## nonsqtr

Hm. Here's a good one. Joni Ernst, the next Senator from Iowa, says this:




> “I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere,” Ernst said at the NRA and Iowa Firearms Coalition Second Amendment Rally in Searsboro, Iowa. “But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...the-government

----------


## Graham Garner

Here is an example of federal preemption of state gun laws (lifetime ban for conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence):
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ld-4992132.php

----------


## nonsqtr

> Here is an example of federal preemption of state gun laws (lifetime ban for conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence):
> http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ld-4992132.php


Yuk. Harry Pregerson, Ninth Circuit. Why am I not surprised?  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Graham Garner

What happened to this man's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...t-to-own-a-gun

----------


## Graham Garner

Chovan's appeal to the Supreme Court was denied _certiorari_.  Like I told you, we have been misrepresented by the gun lobby and the NRA, for in advocating that the Second Amendment secure an individual right, they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure.  The _Chovan_ decision is the harbinger of what is to come. The Supreme Court has opened the door for federal preemption of state gun laws.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> When I talk of rebellion I'm obviously not talking of a lawful remedy.
> I'm recognizing the argument of some members here that they (anonymously) claim to be willing to break the law and commit treason.....in the final analysis because they lost two Presidential elections and are throwing a verbal tantrum!


If the Founders, you know, those guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence and went on to write the Constitution, had lost the Revolution, they'd have been hanged as traitors.

While I have no doubt you'd have been a good Tory, @Devil505, you'd have many of the far Right Wingers here on your side since they, too, support obeying authority.  Go to a thread on the Occupy Movement, Abortion or about the nurse who protested her incarceration over Ebola fears and you will see what I mean.

The only difference between LW and RW Tories are the laws they want to impose on others, not that one supports freedom and the other supports authoritarianism.

----------


## Graham Garner

I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See _The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth_ (1820). The "times that try mens souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself _persona non grata_ in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandts paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.

----------


## nonsqtr

> What happened to this man's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...t-to-own-a-gun


I don't know. What happened to these guys?

----------


## nonsqtr

> I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See _The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth_ (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself _persona non grata_ in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.


Oh, okay. You don't like our Constitution and you have no respect for the people who wrote it. Well, that explains it. 

Well now, a lawyer with an agenda. Ain't that interesting.  :Thinking:

----------


## Graham Garner

Of the three, only Franklin attended the Constitutional Convention, and he didn't write it.

----------


## Devil505

> If the Founders, you know, those guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence and went on to write the Constitution, had lost the Revolution, they'd have been hanged as traitors.
> 
> While I have no doubt you'd have been a good Tory, @Devil505, you'd have many of the far Right Wingers here on your side since they, too, support obeying authority.  Go to a thread on the Occupy Movement, Abortion or about the nurse who protested her incarceration over Ebola fears and you will see what I mean.
> 
> The only difference between LW and RW Tories are the laws they want to impose on others, not that one supports freedom and the other supports authoritarianism.


Translation: We lost to Obama twice and I'm pissed!  :Angry20:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Translation: We lost to Obama twice and I'm pissed!


Here's your favorite picture.  Now I know why you like it so much:



When you want to discuss guns and authoritarians seeking to control other people with gun laws, let me know.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2014),Invayne (11-06-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> .... we have been misrepresented by the gun lobby and the NRA, ...


Amazing how many Righties don't understand that the NRA is the lobbyist for the gun industry and could care less about constitutional rights.

They care about ...

----------


## Devil505

> Here's your favorite picture.  Now I know why you like it so much:
> 
> 
> 
> When you want to discuss guns and authoritarians seeking to control other people with gun laws, let me know.


Your argument was based on my argument and would never have been posted without it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What happened to this man's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...t-to-own-a-gun


The sophists and shysters got hold of it.

Yes, he SHOULD have the right to own a gun.  Obviously not keep that gun on his person in prison; but once released, there should - by the Constitution - be no qualifier.

And no, I'm not afraid of a grifter or embezzler owning a firearm.  A rapist or kidnapper gives pause...but, but BUT.

If they're "rehabilitated" enough to release, they're "rehabilitated" enough to exercise their Constitutional rights.

If they abuse those rights...BACK IN THE SLAM.

In fact, since prison is notoriously ineffective...how about some FLOGGING?  MUCH lower rate of recidivism.  And no, the Constitution does not guarantee the right not to be flogged as punishment for crime.

Nor is it "cruel and unusual" when the punishment is stipulated in law and applies equally to all lawbreakers.

----------

Sled Dog (11-02-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> While I have no doubt you'd have been a good Tory, @Devil505, you'd have many of the far Right Wingers here on your side since they, too, support obeying authority.  Go to a thread on the Occupy Movement, Abortion or about the nurse who protested her incarceration over Ebola fears and you will see what I mean.


No they do not support denying authority.  The Tea Party has shown itself, in numerous rallies, to be THE most law-abiding mass-movement group to come to the fore.  Even policing its own litter.

The exception is when government itself is committing outrages.  At that point, it comes down to moral versus legal.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Amazing how many Righties don't understand that the NRA is the lobbyist for the gun industry and could care less about constitutional rights.
> 
> They care about ...


'

So you respond to a post pointing that your strawmen tactics can't work...by posting another strawman.

Good for you, keep on posting for your side even though the rest of us already know that you know you lost.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

The Second Amendment doesn't protect concealed carry.  See article:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...uit-rules.html

----------


## Victory

> I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them.


Ah yes.  Tell me again what a "traditional conservative" you are.  I need a good laugh.

When I get some more time I'll get into detail about how wrong you are about the founders.  In the meantime you can beat me to it and correct some of the blather about Jefferson and Franklin.

I can't believe a lawyer such as yourself skilled so deeply in some kind of aspect of law (nefarious though your skills are) could miss the founders so thoroughly.

----------


## Victory

> I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The "Tea Party" activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See _The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth_ (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself _persona non grata_ in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.


Why did Jefferson write "The Jefferson Bible?"

Why did Jefferson refrain from freeing his slaves upon his death?

At what period in his life was Jefferson a "deist?"

What was Franklin's "American Religion?"

I'll bet your answers (if you answer) are riddled with assumptions that are easily blown away.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The Second Amendment doesn't protect concealed carry.  See article:
> http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/con...uit-rules.html


So open-carry is fine with you?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Your argument was based on my argument and would never have been posted without it.


I'd expect nothing less from a Statist aka Tory. 

A little history for your enjoyment and edification.  Please note the types of people who composed each group: 

http://education-portal.com/academy/...on.html#lesson


_During the American Revolution, colonists like Benjamin Franklin who supported republicanism and eventually, independence, came to be known as Patriots. Historians estimate that about 40-45% of white men were patriots. Those men who chose to continue supporting the king, like William Franklin, were called Loyalists, or Tories. They made up about 15-20% of the white male population. The last 35-45% never publicly chose sides._
_Just like political affiliations today, loyalists, patriots, and neutrals came from all social and economic classes, and many people took sides based not on principle but on who they thought was going to win or which side would profit them the most personally. But then, as now, there were demographic trends._
_Poor farmers, craftsmen, and small merchants, influenced by the ideas of social equality expressed in works like Thomas Paine's Common Sense, were more likely to be Patriots. So were intellectuals with a strong belief in the Enlightenment. Religious converts of the Great Awakening made strong connections between their faith and a developing sense of nationalism. Loyalists tended to be older colonists, or those with strong ties to England, such as recent immigrants. Wealthy merchants and planters often had business interests with the empire, as did large farmers who profited by supplying the British army. Some opposed the violence they saw in groups like the Sons of Liberty and feared a government run by extremists._
_Of course, many people never took a position. The largest group of neutral colonists was the Quakers, who are pacifists as a rule. They, and other religious pacifists, tried to carry on with life as usual, showing favoritism to none. But their willingness to do business with Britain led to resentment and mistreatment by the Patriots. Other neutral colonists definitely had an opinion about the war but were too scared to announce it publicly. Many colonists were confused - both sides seemed right and wrong. Some colonists, such as those way out on the frontier, weren't affected by all the politics and just didn't care._

----------


## Devil505

> I'd expect nothing less from a Statist aka Tory. 
> 
> A little history for your enjoyment and edification.  Please note the types of people who composed each group: 
> 
> http://education-portal.com/academy/...on.html#lesson
> 
> 
> _During the American Revolution, colonists like Benjamin Franklin who supported republicanism and eventually, independence, came to be known as Patriots. Historians estimate that about 40-45% of white men were patriots. Those men who chose to continue supporting the king, like William Franklin, were called Loyalists, or Tories. They made up about 15-20% of the white male population. The last 35-45% never publicly chose sides._
> _Just like political affiliations today, loyalists, patriots, and neutrals came from all social and economic classes, and many people took sides based not on principle but on who they thought was going to win or which side would profit them the most personally. But then, as now, there were demographic trends._
> ...


The length of your attached article protects it well against the risk of it being read.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The length of your attached article protects it well against the risk of it being read.


I doubt you read anything which disagrees with you.    What you forget is that a post between two people isn't private.  It's public.  I'm not trying convince you of anything since I doubt you can be convinced of anything you don't already believe.  Sames goes for the nut jobs on the other side of the fence.  My goal is to persuade those who are sane, intelligent and reasonable enough to consider all the options before making a decision.  It's those who will, if interested, take a minute to read the article.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

Either open or concealed carry is fine with me provided that you have a license.  My point is that the law governing it is very likely not protected under the Second Amendment; which underscores the problems with applying it to an individual right.  What we will see is federal gun regulation that will trump state gun laws that will be the more restrictive in their application and more limiting of our rights.  Then we shall experience firsthand the unintended consequences of the _Heller_ and _McDonald_ decisions by the Supreme Court.

----------


## Devil505

Open carry is an invitation ...*"Take my gun....It's free!"*

----------


## Graham Garner

We should be wary of what we wish, for we may get more than we would want. Indeed, must it be so with the Second Amendment as American gun owners will soon find themselves the more _well regulated_.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

So, if we don't want guns or want the second amendment to mean we can have guns we would have more guns and less gun grabbers?  How does that work Graham?  Just how does that double speak bullshit work?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Open carry is an invitation ...*"Take my gun....It's free!"*


You're avoidance of my post is noted.  Perhaps, due to the software, you didn't notice it.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  @Devil505




> I doubt you read anything which disagrees with you. What you forget is that a post between two people isn't private. It's public. I'm not trying convince you of anything since I doubt you can be convinced of anything you don't already believe. Sames goes for the nut jobs on the other side of the fence. My goal is to persuade those who are sane, intelligent and reasonable enough to consider all the options before making a decision. It's those who will, if interested, take a minute to read the article.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-02-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

Double speak is precisely the problem with _Heller_. The decision raises more questions than it answers - it leaves us all in doubt. Without clear direction from the Supreme Court, we don’t know where we stand. After distinguishing its precedent in _United States v. Miller_, the court then bent over backwards to reconcile its ruling with that decision, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a direct challenge that it violated the Second Amendment. (My reading of this is that it leaves in place all the federal laws regulating firearms.) And the application the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in  _McDonald v. Chicago_ does not remove individual ownership of firearms from state regulation; worse, it opened the door for federal preemption. The court has issued a decision that is unclear, even confusing; and, worse, as pointed out by the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, weakly premised. This decision will spawn more gun laws (and even more litigation), which can only lead to the lessening of our rights. 

   So what did we win? During oral argument, Mr. Dellinger argued (in response to Justice Alito’s question regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment) that it was wanted to retake state authority over the militia; to which Justice Scalia stated: "They got nothing at all, not everything they wanted. They got nothing at all." _District of Columbia v. Heller_, Transcript, Oral Argument (March 18, 2008) After studying the court’s opinion by Justice Scalia, I am convinced that we got nothing at all as well.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Open carry is an invitation ...*"Take my gun....It's free!"*


That is so stupid. I know many that carry and have never had a gun stolen. You obviously like to lie alot.

----------


## Devil505

> That is so stupid. I know many that carry and have never had a gun stolen. You obviously like to lie alot.


*Man Proudly Open Carrying New Pistol Is Robbed Of It At ...*

www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/.../*man*-proudly-*open*-*carrying*-*pist*...



Oct 8, 2014 - *Man* Proudly *Open Carrying* New *Pistol* Is Robbed Of It At  Wait For .... Hmm forcibly *taking* someone's *gun* with another *gun*, that's rich is it at ...


*Gresham man robbed of pistol at gunpoint while exercising ...*

www.oregonlive.com/.../gresham_*man*_robbed_of_*pist*...

OregonLive.com



Oct 7, 2014 - Coleman said the *man* then inquired about Coleman's *weapon*, then ... *Open carry* is NT necessarily a positive thing except to stir up the anti-*gun* .... stopped being wild when *guns* were *taken* off the street (and off the belt).


*Man openly carrying new gun in Gresham robbed by armed ...*

www.kptv.com/.../*man*-*open*ly-*carrying*-new-*gun*-in-gresham-robbe...KPTV



A *man* openly carrying his new *handgun* was robbed on a Gresham street by a *man* ... And that, folks, is the problem with *open carry*: the thugs know who is carrying. .... Portland woman being monitored for Ebola *taken* to Providence Milwaukie ...


*Open-Carrying Guy Has His Brand-New Pistol Stolen at ...*

gawker.com/*open*-*carrying*-*guy*-has-his-brand-new-*pistol*-stolen-...

Gawker



Oct 8, 2014 - An Oregon *man taking* advantage of the state's *open carry* laws had his new semiautomatic *pistol* stolen at gunpoint early Saturday morning, .

----------


## JustPassinThru

> We should be wary of what we wish, for we may get more than we would want. Indeed, must it be so with the Second Amendment as American gun owners will soon find themselves the more _well regulated_.


The Militia is to be well-regulated...that is, drilled and organized.  And if you'd read the _Federalist Papers_, you'd know that a militia as mentioned in the Constitution, is very different from a standing army.

But the MILITIA is to be well-regulated.  The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed...certainly not with onerous regulation.

And it would be a fine thing.  As one observer noted, an armed society is a polite society.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> That is so stupid. I know many that carry and have never had a gun stolen. You obviously like to lie alot.


He's trying to generate another fear.

Probably came off today's Talking Points fax.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> *Man Proudly “Open Carrying” New Pistol Is Robbed Of It At ...*
> 
> www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/.../*man*-proudly-*open*-*carrying*-*pist*...
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 8, 2014 - *Man* Proudly “*Open Carrying*” New *Pistol* Is Robbed Of It At – Wait For .... Hmm forcibly *taking* someone's *gun* with another *gun*, that's rich is it at ...
> 
> 
> ...


ALL of a SUDDEN.

Astroturfing, maybe?  Naahh...our DemocRat leaders would NEVER do THAT...

----------


## Graham Garner

No.  The proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation - which is why you will find yourself the more _well regulated_ by law.  There are no absolute rights.  All rights exist only by law.  The rights secured by the Second Amendment are provided by law.  Get this through your cold dead head!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No.  The proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation - which is why you will find yourself the more _well regulated_ by law.  There are no absolute rights.  All rights exist only by law.  The rights secured by the Second Amendment are provided by law.  Get this through your cold dead head!


You assert this but offer no evidence from the Constitution or the writings and comments of its authors.

Ergo, I can discount your assertion.

----------


## Victory

> So common sense *IS* needed when interpreting the Constitution after all.


Who the hell has said anything different?  You're fighting a non-existent fight!

----------


## Victory

> Open carry is an invitation ...*"Take my gun....It's free!"*


Cops open carry.  Are they sending that invitation out to all bad guys or do they generally try to stay the fuck away?

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-03-2014)

----------


## Victory

> *Man Proudly “Open Carrying” New Pistol Is Robbed Of It At ...*
> 
> www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/.../*man*-proudly-*open*-*carrying*-*pist*...
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 8, 2014 - *Man* Proudly “*Open Carrying*” New *Pistol* Is Robbed Of It At – Wait For .... Hmm forcibly *taking* someone's *gun* with another *gun*, that's rich is it at ...
> 
> 
> ...


It's a big fucking country--300 million people.  A handful of outliers does not an "invitation" make.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Either open or concealed carry is fine with me provided that you have a license.  My point is that the law governing it is very likely not protected under the Second Amendment; which underscores the problems with applying it to an individual right.  What we will see is federal gun regulation that will trump state gun laws that will be the more restrictive in their application and more limiting of our rights.  Then we shall experience firsthand the unintended consequences of the _Heller_ and _McDonald_ decisions by the Supreme Court.


Well, at least you got one thing right.  :Frown:

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Open carry is an invitation ...*"Take my gun....It's free!"*


You could use the same logic to prohibit people from carrying money.

OR...MARIJUANA.  Carrying marijuana should be banned - it's an open invitation for someone to rob the person carrying it.

----------

Victory (11-03-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> We should be wary of what we wish, for we may get more than we would want. Indeed, must it be so with the Second Amendment as American gun owners will soon find themselves the more _well regulated_.


ROFL!!!

This government is incapable of "well".

You saw how they handled the Iraq War, Syria, Benghazi, ... Ebola... and you're thinking these guys are somehow going to pull "well" out of a hat?

Nah man, half the point here is if these clowns were actually competent then their assumptions of authority might actually mean something (and maybe even get a better response).

But as long as they're out there blowing everything they touch, they can't expect their "authority" to have much of an effect.

Did you catch Obama today? With the hecklers? Ha ha - what a riot!  :Wink: 

See, that's what happens. To shut people up you have to get your armed thugs and escort them out the door.

Ha ha - and these were people who thought Obama wasn't doing enough. Lefties! Irony rocks.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Militia is to be well-regulated...that is, drilled and organized.  And if you'd read the _Federalist Papers_, you'd know that a militia as mentioned in the Constitution, is very different from a standing army.
> 
> But the MILITIA is to be well-regulated.  The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed...certainly not with onerous regulation.
> 
> And it would be a fine thing.  As one observer noted, an armed society is a polite society.


Come on man, the militia in this country is a far cry from its original intent and condition.

The original intent was a "citizen militia", kind of like what Switzerland has. Everyone was gonna participate, that was the deal at the time, every able bodied man was out there fighting the "authorities" and everyone kept a rifle at home just in case the call came and he had to grab it and run out of the house. 

Now, "not" everyone is in the militia. If they were, it would probably be a whole lot better disciplined. And then every able bodied man would get some education and they'd be less likely to do stupid shit like shoot themselves or get their weapon stolen. 

But our government is based on fear lately, and they can't seem to stick their heads up out of it for long enough to do anything smart like that. So, the constitutional beatings will continue until the political morale improves (which will be "never" at this rate).

----------


## JustPassinThru

Do not confuse the "militia" with a "standing army."

As I noted, the _Federalist Papers_ make the distinction plain.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-03-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> No.  The proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation - which is why you will find yourself the more _well regulated_ by law.  There are no absolute rights.  All rights exist only by law.  The rights secured by the Second Amendment are provided by law.  Get this through your cold dead head!


We understand your position, Graham. And it seems we disagree with it (except for Devil). You're arguing within the law and your argument is perfectly fine and correct as far as it goes, but the problem is it's very limited in scope. On any given day on this planet, the stuff that happens "within the law" is only a small fraction of the total activity, and in times like this when respect for the law diminishes or vanishes entirely, then the fraction of the activity that is "outside" the law tends to increase. The paradox for the authoritarians is the harder they push, the more people riot. In other words, it's not something you can control with (additional) legislation.

The problem is not in the Constitution. The problem is in adherence to the Constitution. The problem is in the rest of the law - and the stuff they call "regulations" which aren't really laws but yet they are.

Listen, any six year old can read the Constitution and listen to the news and get the P-300. You know what a P-300 is Graham? That's a brain wave, it's what happens 300 milliseconds after your brain says "does not compute". If you hear a sentence like "I take my coffee with cream and dog", 300 msec after that last word your brain register a "huh what" and that's called a P-300. You can measure it, and it happens every time.

Why don't we try a little experiment to see how good your law is?

Let's take a bunch of 5th or 6th graders (who've read the Constitution at least once), and let's wire 'em up to the brain wave machine, and let's find out how they react when we tell 'em about "Free Speech Zones" on public property, and "takings" that are given to private developers for profit, and yadda yadda ad nauseum.

See, the thing about the P-300 is, it can't be conditioned away. No amount of propaganda is going to disguise or diminish the measurable brain response. It's like a reflex, it happens every time. You couldn't, for example, train someone or hypnotize someone to "avoid" emitting a P-300.

Come on Graham, let's see how your law registers on the kiddies. What do you say?

It's really hard to fool a child. Very difficult. And you can't really argue "within the law", so to speak, when you're having this discussion with a child. You can, however, talk about morality, because children are sensitive and they have feelings. And you can talk about logic at an elementary level, and you'd be surprised at how hip a lot of 6th graders are to what's happening in domestic politics. 

That's a way to get "cold hard proof", but I mean, you can just kinda listen to what people are telling you here. No one's very happy with the condition of things, and once the social environment gets hostile to the politicians, it gets hostile to the law too. That's just reality, you can't change it and neither could a thousand cops.

No Amendment provides any Rights, Graham. As a lawyer you should be more than ashamed of yourself spouting that kind of nonsense.

Do you know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" and an "immunity"?

You can look it up, or you can just kinda figure it out by reading the constitution. What do you think, are you going to get the same answer those two different ways?

----------


## nonsqtr

> He's trying to generate another fear.


The law should not be an instrument of intimidation, it should be an instrument of *justice*.

Intimidation is the opposite of empowerment. And the purpose of the law should be to *empower* the People.

In fact, the *purpose of the law* is stated right in the very first sentence of our Constitution. You can go read it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The law should not be an instrument of intimidation, it should be an instrument of *justice*.
> 
> Intimidation is the opposite of empowerment. And the purpose of the law should be to *empower* the People.
> 
> In fact, the *purpose of the law* is stated right in the very first sentence of our Constitution. You can go read it.


The purpose of his party is the acquisition of power.

That's the only common theme they have, over the years - always, bigger government, more intrusive government, more taxes to grow government, more bodies hired by government...

Typically his party will start an agitation campaign by ginning up fear.  Fear of Glow-Bull Warming.  Fear of GUNS, making law-abiding Gentle Giants suddenly go crazy when the guns leap into their hands.  Fear that we won't have any more cute Spotted Owls or Snail Darters or Delta Smelt.

FEAR.

Always, the answer to that fear is:  MORE GOVERNMENT.  MORE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

And, of course, more DemocRat despot wannabees in offices.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No. The proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation


Yeah, sure.

Regulations are infringements on people's activities.  Naturally there's no way that the only Constitutional Amendment banning "infringement" could possibly have any relation to regulation.  After all, regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats and thus aren't relevant to Congress at all.

That was going to be your next foolish point, wasn't it?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Come on man, the militia in this country is a far cry from its original intent and condition.
> .


The word "militia" means the men able to carry arms who are not in the "army".

The word "regulate" means they get some regular training on how to use those weapons. 

in no way does the word "regulate" mean "no you can't have that one", nor does it mean "you can't get one if you don't tell us where you live and who you are", nor does it mean "we love fascism".

----------

Victory (11-03-2014)

----------


## goosey

Why are we arguing about this!?

We know full well that the vast overwhelming amount of gun attacks are done with unregistered guns. And we know how many people are saved with guns.

That is ALL there is!

----------


## nonsqtr

> Why are we arguing about this!?
> 
> We know full well that the vast overwhelming amount of gun attacks are done with unregistered guns. And we know how many people are saved with guns.
> 
> That is ALL there is!


In this country, if you save someone with an unregistered weapon it makes you the criminal.

That's why we're arguing.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yeah, sure.
> 
> Regulations are infringements on people's activities.  Naturally there's no way that the only Constitutional Amendment banning "infringement" could possibly have any relation to regulation.  After all, regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats and thus aren't relevant to Congress at all.
> 
> That was going to be your next foolish point, wasn't it?


See, you get it, I get it, others get it, but none of that is going to register on Graham because he's only operating "within" the law. None of what you just said is going to make sense to him, he's just going to refer to the law and tell you how reality looks that way.

You can re-read this thread and note all the little things people have mentioned about the law - all the myriad dozens upon dozens of ways the law is non-sensical and self-contradictory.

The simple fact is the law has been corrupted. Decisions not based on the Constitution have been entered into precedent and subsequent rulings have built upon them, and the result is conflict and loss of credibility.

Really, it's simple math. If you start with a set of fundamental assumptions and then arbitrarily declare that a nonsensical statement is "true", then eventually as you apply logic you will arrive at a condition which is self-contradictory, your math will tell you that A doesn't equal A. And that's exactly where our law is today, with free speech that isn't but money is and stupid crap like that.

To Graham I say: look pal, everyone here can read the English language. Right now there's a 9:1 ratio of English-speakers who are telling you plain and simple what the Constitution says and they all agree. But the Supreme Court doesn't. And this is the pattern we're seeing today, 90% of America thinks the Court is shit-for-brains stupid and they think the decisions are un-Constitutional and they don't agree with any of 'em. That's a problem, that's not something you can address with "authority". (Well, you can try, but you're not going to get very far). What you actually have to do is fix the law, which means you need a Judicial Branch that's not subservient to the Executive and doesn't decide cases on a political basis. Fucking penalties are taxes but only when they're not but oh wait they are again.... Jesus Christ man, grow a brain. The federal fucking shit-for-brains government has *no authority* to force anyone to enter into a private contract. Period full stop, end of story. That is *not* one of the Powers granted to this federal government by the States or by the People. And here's the Chief fucking Moron of 'em all, completely ignoring this *constitutional* boundary and pulling some kinda bullshit Orwellian doubletalk out of his butt. WTF kinda law is that, hm? 

That isn't law pal, that's capricious whimsical bullshit, and if that's the direction the Supreme Morons are going then I guarantee you they're going to be out of business pretty soon.

----------

Victory (11-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> See, you get it, I get it, others get it, but none of that is going to register on Graham *because he's only operating "within" the law.* None of what you just said is going to make sense to him, he's just going to refer to the law and tell you how reality looks that way.


This is why I rarely participate in this topic anymore.
The conversation has morphed into a discussion of the Supreme law of the land....the Constitution...and how it relates to guns.
Yet you are arguing that Graham is limiting himself to....*The Law?!?!
*
Why would any sane person want to discuss what criminal activities could apply here?
How about we discuss which is better....bank robbery or cop killing?
Arson or Speeding?
Treason or war crimes?

Graham and I are discussing the legal aspect of the topic....period.
Anyone who is willing to break the law can obviously make that choice and pay the consequences if caught.
Not much to discuss there.

Sled Dog's "Contribution" to this topic is....."I'm going to pretend the law is meaningless and do what I want!"......
What can one possibly say to that but...go for it!?

----------


## Devil505

> In this country, if you save someone with an unregistered weapon it makes you the criminal.
> 
> That's why we're arguing.


Why are you arguing the law?

Didn't you just say this:



> See, you get it, I get it, others get it, but none of that is going to register on Graham *because he's only operating "within" the law.* None of what you just said is going to make sense to him, he's just going to refer to the law and tell you how reality looks that way.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Do not confuse the "militia" with a "standing army."
> 
> As I noted, the _Federalist Papers_ make the distinction plain.


Agreed.  Same goes for this scholarly article about the history of the Second Amendment:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
_These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group_
_trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical_
_government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute_
_that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English_
_theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed_
_population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since_
_such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would_
_comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common_
_public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms,_
_thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create_
_a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a_
_free state, just as it says._

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No.  The proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation - which is why you will find yourself the more _well regulated_ by law.  There are no absolute rights.  All rights exist only by law.  The rights secured by the Second Amendment are provided by law.  Get this through your cold dead head!



The security is to be provided by LAW, not the right itself.  Self Defense is a natural right and does not require approval from the Federal Government.  Get that through your cold dead head

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> *Man Proudly Open Carrying New Pistol Is Robbed Of It At ...*
> 
> www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/.../*man*-proudly-*open*-*carrying*-*pist*...
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 8, 2014 - *Man* Proudly *Open Carrying* New *Pistol* Is Robbed Of It At  Wait For .... Hmm forcibly *taking* someone's *gun* with another *gun*, that's rich is it at ...
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, you ignore all of the stories out there that show that someone that did CC thwarted a crime in progress. If someone tries to steal my CC weapon, they had better be wearing a bullet proof vest.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

Perhaps, Devil505 feels as lucky as this guy.

----------


## Devil505

> Of course, you ignore all of the stories out there that show that someone that did CC thwarted a crime in progress. If someone tries to steal my CC weapon, they had better be wearing a bullet proof vest.


Here's the context again:

*




 Originally Posted by Devil505


Open carry is an invitation ..


*


> *"Take my gun....It's free!"*





> That is so stupid. I know many that carry and have never had a gun stolen. You obviously like to lie alot.


I had you on ignore because you are really a waste of time and way over your head to debate.
Try bowling!

----------


## Katzndogz

> You could use the same logic to prohibit people from carrying money.
> 
> OR...MARIJUANA.  Carrying marijuana should be banned - it's an open invitation for someone to rob the person carrying it.


Or someone wearing expensive jewelry or a woman in a short skirt.

The difference with open carry is the person doing the carrying has the means to protect himself and doesn't use it.

----------


## Devil505

> You could use the same logic to prohibit people from carrying money.
> 
> OR...MARIJUANA.  Carrying marijuana should be banned - it's an open invitation for someone to rob the person carrying it.


No one is talking about prohibiting it!
I'm talking about the *advisability* of open carry vs concealed if you have a choice.

Would you walk the streets with money pinned to you clothes?
Women who publicly wear expensive jewelry prominently displayed are just looking for trouble.

----------


## Mainecoons

Interesting that when you google up "incidence of open carry guns being stolen" you get a number of reports.

It seems to me that concealed carry makes more sense.  Why advertise you are packing heat?

----------

Devil505 (11-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Interesting that when you google up "incidence of open carry guns being stolen" you get a number of reports.
> 
> It seems to me that concealed carry makes more sense.  Why advertise you are packing heat?


Just putting on the uniform makes one a target.
Look at the recent unprovoked attacks on uniformed cops.

I would never want to advertise that I was a cop or that I was armed!

----------


## Devil505

> The difference with open carry is the person doing the carrying has the means to protect himself and doesn't use it.


Pretty tough to protect yourself from someone sneaking up behind you and hitting you over the head.
Or a couple of punks grabbing you by surprise.

----------


## Hansel

> The security is to be provided by LAW, not the right itself.  Self Defense is a natural right and does not require approval from the Federal Government.  Get that through your cold dead head


Sounds like a philosophical issue to me.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Sounds like a philosophical issue to me.


Exactly.  At least one person understand the true issue here.

----------

Victory (11-03-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I think our pal Graham would have been a strong proponent of  the alleged Louis XIV quote of "C'est Le Moi"  It doesn't matter what the Constitution actually means since the Supreme Court is "The State" then it means precisely what they say it means, neither more nor less.

----------


## Graham Garner

Well, Dr. Felix Birdbiter, I don't think that the Supreme Court will overturn _Marbury v. Madison_ anytime soon.; and so we might as well accept the fact that they have the final word.

----------


## Victory

> This is why I rarely participate in this topic anymore.
> The conversation has morphed into a discussion of the Supreme law of the land....the Constitution...and how it relates to guns.
> Yet you are arguing that Graham is limiting himself to....*The Law?!?!
> *
> Why would any sane person want to discuss what criminal activities could apply here?
> How about we discuss which is better....bank robbery or cop killing?
> Arson or Speeding?
> Treason or war crimes?
> 
> ...


It's almost as if there were some "Law" outside the "law" that you and Graham argue "within."  This "Law" seems to exist "outside" the Constitution, regulations, high cap mag bans, or any other silly ass laws we humans assert.  It's almost like this exterior "Law" is a force of nature--call it, oh, I dunno, "Natural Law."

And historically, philosophers and political scientists have endeavored to make human law CONFORM to Natural Law--at least they were motivated to do so in the Constitutional Congress.

You and Graham can continue to prattle on about this seemingly important but corrupt, unnatural, positivist "human law" like a couple of chipmunks chattering away on a log about the most important matters in the chipmunk world but Nature will continue to be Nature.  Ignore it at your peril.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-03-2014),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> It's almost as if there were some "Law" outside the "law" that you and Graham argue "within."  This "Law" seems to exist "outside" the Constitution, regulations, high cap mag bans, or any other silly ass laws we humans assert.  It's almost like this exterior "Law" is a force of nature--call it, oh, I dunno, "Natural Law."
> 
> And historically, philosophers and political scientists have endeavored to make human law CONFORM to Natural Law--at least they were motivated to do so in the Constitutional Congress.
> 
> You and Graham can continue to prattle on about this seemingly important but corrupt, unnatural, positivist "human law" like a couple of chipmunks chattering away on a log about the most important matters in the chipmunk world but Nature will continue to be Nature.  Ignore it at your peril.


No idea what you're prattling about??

We are talking about *actual law*......... that is what SCOTUS decisions/Opinions are.....*Actual law!
*
You guys are arguing your philosophies and your opinions....which have no standing in law.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Just putting on the uniform makes one a target.
> Look at the recent unprovoked attacks on uniformed cops.
> 
> I would never want to advertise that I was a cop or that I was armed!


No, liberalism and liberal propaganda, turn cops into targets.

Witness all the spin and skew and lies about Gentle Giants who're provoked into assaults by the aggressive PRESENCE of a cop or neighborhood watch captain.

Witness all the hate your side gins up about "killer cops."

You OWN that.  Be proud...

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-03-2014)

----------


## Victory

> No idea what you're prattling about??
> *
> . . .
> *
> You guys are arguing your *philosophies. . .*


Guilty as charged!

Yes, Devil, yes!  It _IS_ a philosophical matter!  Hallelujah!  The damned are enlightened!  The clouds they have parted! 

 Sokath!  His eyes open!




Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!

Yes, Devil.  Philosophy!  Welcome to the debate!

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-03-2014),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Guilty as charged!
> 
> Yes, Devil, yes!  It _IS_ a philosophical matter!  Hallelujah!  The damned are enlightened!  The clouds they have parted! 
> 
>  Sokath!  His eyes open!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then you should be posting in the philosophy and religion forum.

This forum is politics and news Op Ed.

Judges aren't supposed to decide cases on anything but the law and they certainly aren't bound by your philosophical opinions.

----------


## Victory

> Then you should be posting in the philosophy and religion forum.
> 
> This forum is politics and news Op Ed.
> 
> Judges aren't supposed to decide cases on anything but the law and they certainly aren't bound by your philosophical opinions.


The whole damn thing from top to bottom is Positive Law vs. Natural Law.




> positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-made_law

If you think the discussion is misplaced then by all means, take it to the philosophy room and stop arguing here from a philosophical point!  Physician, heal thyself!




> Thomas asserted the primacy of natural law over man-made law, stating that where it "is at variance with natural law it will not be a law, but spoilt law" (ST, I–II q. 95 a. 2). The result of any such conflict is that the man-made law does "not oblige in the court of conscience" (ST, I–II q. 95 a. 4).[2][3] Natural law theorists and others have thusly challenged many man-made laws over the years, on the grounds that they conflict with what the challengers assert to be natural, or divine, laws.


THAT is what the whole debate is about!

----------


## Devil505

> THAT is what the whole debate is about!


No....it's about what our actual laws *ARE* ......not how we arrived at them.

You're arguing that your philosophy trumps actual law.
It doesn't.

----------


## Victory

> No....it's about what our actual laws *ARE* ......not how we arrived at them.
> 
> You're arguing that your philosophy trumps actual law.
> It doesn't.


You're arguing that if the Supreme Court outlaws rebellion then rebellion can not happen.
Good luck with that philosophy.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You're arguing that if the Supreme Court outlaws rebellion then rebellion can not happen.
> Good luck with that philosophy.


That's a pretty on-spot assessment.

The Left thinks there's NO END to what they can push us through, now that Boner's raised the white flag (his hanky, still wet with tears) and the RINOs have gamed the election.

THEY ARE WRONG.  On the agenda for the New Year...neighborhood-busting; jamming coloreds into EVERY neighborhood that the colored census workers found to be too white for their taste.  Remember when those Affikan-Merikans were running around everywhere with odd-looking equipment?  I do.  In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, they stood out like sore thumbs.

Going on every doorstep and lobby; and always not answering when asked WTF they were doing.  They'd just smile and say, "_I done now, anyway.  I the Census._"

Now we're gonna see the fruits of their work; as these moronic social engineers move us around like a preschooler moves colored building blocks.  Me, I think that's a bridge too far; they're gonna light off the powder keg.

----------


## Devil505

> You're arguing that if the Supreme Court outlaws rebellion then rebellion can not happen.
> Good luck with that philosophy.





> That's a pretty on-spot assessment.
> 
> The Left thinks there's NO END to what they can push us through, now that Boner's raised the white flag (his hanky, still wet with tears) and the RINOs have gamed the election.
> 
> THEY ARE WRONG. On the agenda for the New Year...neighborhood-busting; jamming coloreds into EVERY neighborhood that the colored census workers found to be too white for their taste. Remember when those Affikan-Merikans were running around everywhere with odd-looking equipment? I do. In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, they stood out like sore thumbs.
> 
> Going on every doorstep and lobby; and always not answering when asked WTF they were doing. They'd just smile and say, "_I done now, anyway. I the Census._"
> 
> Now we're gonna see the fruits of their work; as these moronic social engineers move us around like a preschooler moves colored building blocks. Me, I think that's a bridge too far; they're gonna light off the powder keg.


 No.
I'm arguing that because the Constitution outlaws rebellion then rebellion can not happen lawfully.....ie the feds can incarcerate or even shoot you for breaking the law.

Good luck with you reading skills class.

----------


## Victory

> No.
> I'm arguing that if the SC outlaws rebellion then rebellion can not happen lawfully.....


But that's kind of a silly thing to say.  I can think of only one poster who thinks that kind of thing needs to be highlighted.

Why not progress into a more intellectual debate?

----------


## Hansel

> The whole damn thing from top to bottom is Positive Law vs. Natural Law.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-made_law
> 
> If you think the discussion is misplaced then by all means, take it to the philosophy room and stop arguing here from a philosophical point!  Physician, heal thyself!
> ...


Without the willing  cooperation of the governed there may not be any law, be it natural or otherwise that can be administered. Even with natural law there may be
conflicts of interests if one person's "natural" law abuses the law of another person.  I think that people who tout this bullshit are anti social idiots that don't realize just how much they have it made in a country where law and order prevails for the most part. 

For example, a man may have the natural right to have sex but does he have the right to abuse a woman by raping her?  It takes two to tango they say.

----------


## Hansel

> That's a pretty on-spot assessment.
> 
> The Left thinks there's NO END to what they can push us through, now that Boner's raised the white flag (his hanky, still wet with tears) and the RINOs have gamed the election.
> 
> THEY ARE WRONG.  On the agenda for the New Year...neighborhood-busting; jamming coloreds into EVERY neighborhood that the colored census workers found to be too white for their taste.  Remember when those Affikan-Merikans were running around everywhere with odd-looking equipment?  I do.  In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, they stood out like sore thumbs.
> 
> Going on every doorstep and lobby; and always not answering when asked WTF they were doing.  They'd just smile and say, "_I done now, anyway.  I the Census._"
> 
> Now we're gonna see the fruits of their work; as these moronic social engineers move us around like a preschooler moves colored building blocks.  Me, I think that's a bridge too far; they're gonna light off the powder keg.


The Census is authorized by the constitution and the Congress is charged with deciding how and when to operate it. The data is used by a lot of government agencies as well as by private businesses.  It helps to allocate government resources based on need as indicated by population count in  a given district.  I have taken census the last
two times and most people were more than glad to cooperate but there are always a small number of rednecks that  like to show their asses and their ignorance.

One dumbass told one of my girls to get off his property or he would call the law. She said go ahead and do it, and when the cops showed up she showed them  the law. Guess who lost that one?

----------


## Victory

> Without the willing  cooperation of the governed there may not be any law, be it natural or otherwise that can be administered.  Even with natural law there may be
>  conflicts of interests if one person's "natural" law abuses the law of another person.


Who administers Natural Law?  Hint:  Not any legislator, judge, or executive.




> I think that people who tout this bullshit are anti social idiots that don't realize just how much they have it made in a country where law and order prevails for the most part. 
> 
>  For example, a man may have the natural right to have sex but does he have the right to abuse a woman by raping her?  It takes two to tango they say


Okay.  So you don't know what Natural Law means.  That's okay.  Read "Written on the Heart" by J. Budziszewski.  Oh but wait!  You're the guy who calls the Constitution the "constipation."  So no surprise you're confused as hell.

Natural Law does not equal "nature."

Natural Law does not equal "chaos."

----------


## Devil505

> Okay.  So you don't know what Natural Law means.  That's okay.  Read "Written on the Heart" by J. Budziszewski.  Oh but wait!  You're the guy who calls the Constitution the "constipation."  So no surprise you're confused as hell.
> 
> Natural Law does not equal "nature."


Tell you what...the next time you violate a federal law tell the judge you don't agree with our laws but go with "Natural Law" and tell us how that works out for you.

----------


## Victory

> Tell you what...the next time you violate a federal law tell the judge you don't agree with our laws but go with "Natural Law" and tell us how that works out for you.


Again, it's a trivial matter to say, "If you break the law you might be in trouble."

I would expect a former DEA agent to plumb the depths of the nature of law and its consequences a bit deeper than that.  But maybe I've over estimated you.

----------


## Devil505

> I would expect a former DEA agent to plumb the depths of the nature of law and its consequences a bit deeper than that.  But maybe I've over estimated you.


When one side disavows any law they don't agree with...... there no point in finding out what their whacky reasoning is.
I could care less.

----------


## Victory

> When one side disavows any law they don't agree with...... there no point in finding out what their whacky reasoning is.
> I could care less.


Great.  Thanks.

That's not what's happening here.

Here's yet another opportunity for enlightenment.  I think I've expressed here in this thread the fact that I really really really know and understand your point of view.  I gave it a name you might or might not be familiar with--positive law.

You can demonstrate you've done the same by telling everyone what Natural Law is.  Would you like to enlighten us?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The Census is authorized by the constitution and the Congress is charged with deciding how and when to operate it. The data is used by a lot of government agencies as well as by private businesses.  It helps to allocate government resources based on need as indicated by population count in  a given district.  I have taken census the last
> two times and most people were more than glad to cooperate but there are always a small number of rednecks that  like to show their asses and their ignorance.
> 
> One dumbass told one of my girls to get off his property or he would call the law. She said go ahead and do it, and when the cops showed up she showed them  the law. Guess who lost that one?


So then...you're in favor of government re-arranging where and how people live based on how they measure up to COLOR CHIPS?

And, WHY?  Because the government wishes it, it must be good?  Is THAT what you think?

So...we're all just property to be moved and manipulated as Our Wise Government wishes.

Except that there is no life-form called "government."  It's people IN government, who've asserted that they, and only they, have control over how we, their SUBJECTS, their PEONS, may live.

And how we may live.

And where.

And how much money we can make, before they take the excess away and give to shiftless, idle, useless wastrels...based on SKIN COLOR.

You're a born slave.  You know that?  You don't want liberty; you only want a kind master.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> When one side disavows any law they don't agree with...... there no point in finding out what their whacky reasoning is.
> I could care less.


So when SoetoroKair mandates that insurance companies can no longer write the kind of health policy you had and wanted; and that you MUST buy a hyper-expensive, WORTHLESS policy with few doctors, a deductible that is far more than you can afford, and monthly payments that're more than your automobile payment...

...IT IS THE LAW.  COMPLY.

You don't WANT to buy such useless insurance?  WE COULD CARE LESS. 

*COMPLY!
*

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-03-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Without the willing  cooperation of the governed there may not be any law, be it natural or otherwise that can be administered. Even with natural law there may be
> conflicts of interests if one person's "natural" law abuses the law of another person.  I think that people who tout this bullshit are anti social idiots that don't realize just how much they have it made in a country where law and order prevails for the most part. 
> 
> For example, a man may have the natural right to have sex but does he have the right to abuse a woman by raping her?  It takes two to tango they say.


A man does not have a natural right to have sex.  One's rights never impose an obligation on another.  If force upon another is required then it is most assuredly not a right.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Census is authorized by the constitution and the Congress is charged with deciding how and when to operate it. The data is used by a lot of government agencies as well as by private businesses.  It helps to allocate government resources based on need as indicated by population count in  a given district.  I have taken census the last
> two times and most people were more than glad to cooperate but there are always a small number of rednecks that  like to show their asses and their ignorance.
> 
> One dumbass told one of my girls to get off his property or he would call the law. She said go ahead and do it, and when the cops showed up she showed them  the law. Guess who lost that one?


The Constitution requires that a census be taken every 10 years in order to determine the make up of the House of Representatives.  There are no provisions in the the Constitution that requires or even allows the census be used to allocate government resources.

----------

Sled Dog (11-04-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> You can demonstrate you've done the same by telling everyone what Natural Law is.  Would you like to enlighten us?


Natural law is in the eye of the beholder and therefore useless to try to build a society around..
Only when laws are codified, accepted by the majority and enforceable do they have any relevance.

----------


## Victory

> When one side disavows any law they don't agree with...... there no point in finding out what their whacky reasoning is.
> I could care less.


Have you signed up for Obama care?  It's the law, y'know.

How about throwing out an old tenant's junk mail instead of forwarding it?  Ever done that?

Ever give a sharpie to a kid like your son or nephew?

Ever watch a Youtube that you know is copyrighted?

Do you deliberately speed?

I guess some people just disavow any law they don't agree with.

----------


## Victory

> Natural law is in the eye of the beholder and therefore useless to try to build a society around.


Okay so that would be a fail.

Try learning just a single damn thing about the opposition before you attempt a debate.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Natural law is in the eye of the beholder and therefore useless to try to build a society around..
> Only when laws are codified, accepted by the majority and enforceable do they have any relevance.


Natural law can be deduced with observations.  If you were educated and well-read, you would know that the principles used by Jefferson and Madison were articulated by Enlightenment philosophers Locke and de Montesquieu; who build on concepts by earlier philosophers.

The proof of their accuracy as Natural Law was HOW WELL the United States worked and excelled - compared to the monarchies and fiefdoms and empires and later socialist democracies and National Socialist war machines, or of the Russian empire transformed into a collection of districts and Commissariats headed by potentates or politburos.

What Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and those before them, deduced as Natural Law...WORKED.

What Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Alinsky and Gus Hall and Barry Soetoro-Dunham and whoever else ASSERT is BETTER than that claptrap from dead white men...DOES NOT WORK.  We've just gotten a taste; and already the wheels are coming off.

----------

nonsqtr (11-04-2014),Victory (11-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Natural law can be deduced with observations.  If you were educated and well-read, you would know that the principles used by Jefferson and Madison were articulated by Enlightenment philosophers Locke and de Montesquieu; who build on concepts by earlier philosophers.
> 
> The proof of their accuracy as Natural Law was HOW WELL the United States worked and excelled - compared to the monarchies and fiefdoms and empires and later socialist democracies and National Socialist war machines, or of the Russian empire transformed into a collection of districts and Commissariats headed by potentates or politburos.
> 
> What Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and those before them, deduced as Natural Law...WORKED.
> 
> What Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Alinsky and Gus Hall and Barry Soetoro-Dunham and whoever else ASSERT is BETTER than that claptrap from dead white men...DOES NOT WORK.  We've just gotten a taste; and already the wheels are coming off.


Our Constitution works and so does the SC's Judicial Review.
While no one agrees with all their opinions, this country would cease to exist without them.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Our Constitution works and so does the SC's Judicial Review.
> While no one agrees with all their opinions, this country would cease to exist without them.


So why do you keep wanting to rewrite the Second Amendment?

----------


## Devil505

> So why do you keep wanting to rewrite the Second Amendment?


Why do you hate your country?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why do you hate your country?


I don't.  I swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  I still hold by that oath.

Why do you seek to turn our nation into a tyranny?

----------


## Devil505

> I don't.  I swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  I still hold by that oath.
> 
> Why do you seek to turn our nation into a tyranny?


I don't. I also swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still hold by that oath.

----------


## JustPassinThru

And yet he still attacks the Second Amendment.

May he burn in Hell for profaning God's name in his dishonest oath.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't. I also swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still hold by that oath.


Yet you're the one seeking to restrict the rights of others, not me.  Eat your words: _Why do you hate your country?_

----------


## Devil505

> Yet you're the one seeking to restrict the rights of others, not me.


 :Deadhorse:

----------


## Max Rockatansky



----------

nonsqtr (11-04-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Natural law is in the eye of the beholder and therefore useless to try to build a society around..
> Only when laws are codified, accepted by the majority and enforceable do they have any relevance.


What if the law is "against the law"?  If the law is sacrosanct does that mean it operates in a vacuum or are there principles that determine what legitimate laws may be passed?  If the "Law of the Land" i.e. the Constitution states troops cannot be quartered in your home can the legislature pass a law requiring troops to be quartered in your home?  If the Supreme Court were to uphold such a law would it then be legitimate.  Would it be right and proper to jail those who would not allow troops to be quartered in their home?  

No weasels, like well if this were that.  Its a plain cut restriction period, no equivocation.  Can the legislature ignore the law of the land if the courts say its ok to do so?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Why do you hate your country?


Do you always answer a question with a question?

----------


## Victory

> 


In the middle of a gun fight:  I wish my magazine didn't hold so many rounds, said nobody EVER!

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-04-2014)

----------


## Victory

> *What if the law is "against the law"?*  If the law is sacrosanct does that mean it operates in a vacuum or are there principles that determine what legitimate laws may be passed?  If the "Law of the Land" i.e. the Constitution states troops cannot be quartered in your home can the legislature pass a law requiring troops to be quartered in your home?  If the Supreme Court were to uphold such a law would it then be legitimate.  Would it be right and proper to jail those who would not allow troops to be quartered in their home?  
> 
> No weasels, like well if this were that.  Its a plain cut restriction period, no equivocation.  Can the legislature ignore the law of the land if the courts say its ok to do so?


That's what it really comes down to.

In a previous forum I posed a question (Devil was involved just like this one).  I was arguing that the 16th amendment was unconstitutional with the utterly clear understanding that it is indeed part of the Constitution itself.  I said it was unconstitutional because it struck at the heart of the Constitution in that it put the federal government right up close and personally involved with every person in the nation.  This was a violation of the capitation tax specifically called out in the Constitution proper and it struck at the heart of the vast separation between the federal government and the citizen which is how the whole Constitution is structured.  I was "educated" by Devil and others on the most elemental aspects of the Constitution (Imagine a class full of 1st graders "educating" a rocket scientist on the inner workings of basic addition and you get the picture).  So I posed the following question:

Suppose a new amendment is proposed, passed, and ratified.  This amendment reads as follows:_ 
Articles I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII of the Constitution are null and void.  All amendments with the exception of this one are null and void.  All legislation, execution, and judicial matters upon ratification will be the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive of the United States._ 
Would such an amendment be constitutional?

Like lemmings they lined up and said yes.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Well, Dr. Felix Birdbiter, I don't think that the Supreme Court will overturn _Marbury v. Madison_ anytime soon.; and so we might as well accept the fact that they have the final word.


Negative. The states have nullified SCOTUS decisions in the past and can still do so... a SCOTUS opinion is just that... an opinion.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No one is talking about prohibiting it!
> I'm talking about the *advisability* of open carry vs concealed if you have a choice.
> 
> Would you walk the streets with money pinned to you clothes?
> Women who publicly wear expensive jewelry prominently displayed are just looking for trouble.


So what you are arguing for is that concealed carry should be a non-infringeable right, which it is, since the  Constitution's anti-infringement command is absolute without caveat of any sort.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No idea what you're prattling about??
> 
> We are talking about *actual law*......... that is what SCOTUS decisions/Opinions are.....*Actual law!
> *
> You guys are arguing your philosophies and your opinions....which have no standing in law.


No.  "Actual law" is passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

The courts rulings have nothing to do with that.    The stupid court even claimed MessiahCare was constitutional...while it illegally made changes that placed MessiahCare in violation of the Originations Clause.

----------


## Sled Dog

> But that's kind of a silly thing to say. I can think of only one poster who thinks that kind of thing needs to be highlighted.
> 
> Why not progress into a more intellectual debate?


You do know you're responding to @Devil505 in that post, don't you?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Without the willing cooperation of the governed there may not be any law, be it natural or otherwise that can be administered. Even with natural law there may be
> conflicts of interests if one person's "natural" law abuses the law of another person. I think that people who tout this bullshit are anti social idiots that don't realize just how much they have it made in a country where law and order prevails for the most part. 
> 
> For example, a man may have the natural right to have sex but does he have the right to abuse a woman by raping her? It takes two to tango they say.


"Natural right to have sex"? What kind of nonsense is that? Men have natural desires, but having sex requires either the consent of the partner or it's an act of rape. 

In no way does anyone have a natural right to either the consent of another, for anything, or the right to rape.

THIS is why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't know what words mean, you have no concept of concepts, you get confused very easily.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The Census is authorized by the constitution and the Congress is charged with deciding how and when to operate it. The data is used by a lot of government agencies as well as by private businesses. It helps to allocate government resources based on need as indicated by population count in a given district. I have taken census the last
> two times and most people were more than glad to cooperate but there are always a small number of rednecks that like to show their asses and their ignorance.
> 
> One dumbass told one of my girls to get off his property or he would call the law. She said go ahead and do it, and when the cops showed up she showed them the law. Guess who lost that one?


The Constitution permits the counting of persons.  No refrigerators, guns, employment status, family heritage, or shoe size.  ONLY the number of persons, and their status as free persons, slaves, or Indians who are not taxed.

Since there are no free persons, and since everyone is taxed, Congress is lawfully authorized at this time to count only slaves.

Why should the taxpayers pay to gather data that private businesses then use to call them up at dinner time?

If you've "taken the census", you clearly need to understand what part of the Constitution you're following, and what part you aren't.  Mostly, you weren't.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Again, it's a trivial matter to say, "If you break the law you might be in trouble."
> 
> I would expect a former DEA agent to plumb the depths of the nature of law and its consequences a bit deeper than that. But maybe I've over estimated you.


No, DEA goons realize that for them the law is all in the flash-bang grenade.

A completely unconstitutional organization serving a completely unconstitutional goal, they never cared about the damage they've done to the country.

----------

Victory (11-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Our Constitution works and so does the SC's Judicial Review.
> While no one agrees with all their opinions, this country would cease to exist without them.


Really?

Hairy Fucking Reid refusing to allow bills from the House onto the floor of the Senate is how you see the Constitution "working"?

King Ebola simply writing rules and telling bureaucrats to do things they don't have the authority to do, simply because he's too stupid to work with Congress is how the Constitution "works"?

King Ebola attacking Libya and helping al qeada and other terrorists, completely without any form of consent from Congress, that's how the Constitution "works"?

The Supreme Court flatly declaring an incompetently written law a "tax" when the actual text of the bill calls the penalties um...PENALTIES, merely to make the bill appear to be Constitutional to the trutly stupid people who claim what the Courts say is "law"...that's how the Constitution works?


No, it's not how the Constitution works.  It's how the Constitution is raped and how the nation dies.

----------

Hansel (11-04-2014),usfan (11-04-2014)

----------


## usfan

1.  The 'right' to keep & bear arms is like many other rights.. it is not absolute, but is mitigated by the collective, as other rights are.  You cannot say limits to free speech destroys free speech.  That is anarchy logic, demanding absolute freedom in everything, & implying any limits are 'statist'.    2.Every one of the bill of rights has limits.. there is not total freedom of the press, or speech, or gun ownership, or any individual liberty.  It is valid for the collective to place MINIMAL limits on individual freedoms, & those are usually driven by population density.  The more we pile on each other, the more regulations we need.  3. the tricky balance is to preserve as much of the individual freedom as possible, while not infringing on the collective freedoms of others.  4.  It's too hard to communicate without carriage returns & proper formatting, but i can expand on this when i get to a real computer, that knows what a carriage return is..    :Shakeshead:

----------


## Victory

> You do know you're responding to @Devil505 in that post, don't you?


Oh yes.  That one person is Devil.

----------


## Victory

> Our Constitution works and so does the SC's Judicial Review.
> While no one agrees with all their opinions, this country would cease to exist without them.


So tell me:

If the Constitution were abused, what would it look like?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So tell me:
> 
> If the Constitution were abused, what would it look like?



Its impossible for the government to abuse the Constitution, only the people can abuse it.  If the government says its ok, well by damn, its ok.  This is why the 1st Amendment stating "Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion" means we the people must never ever discuss religion in public.

----------

Victory (11-04-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Its impossible for the government to abuse the Constitution, only the people can abuse it.  If the government says its ok, well by damn, its ok.  This is why the 1st Amendment stating "Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion" means we the people must never ever discuss religion in public.


Quite right.  The government made the Constitution so the Constitution is whatever the government says it is.

----------


## Victory

> So tell me:
> 
> If the Constitution were abused, what would it look like?


Clarification  @Devil505

If the Constitution were abused, how would the government behave?

If the Constitution were abused, how could you tell it's being abused?

----------


## old wood

> We understand your position, Graham. And it seems we disagree with it (except for Devil). You're arguing within the law and your argument is perfectly fine and correct as far as it goes, but the problem is it's very limited in scope. On any given day on this planet, the stuff that happens "within the law" is only a small fraction of the total activity, and in times like this when respect for the law diminishes or vanishes entirely, then the fraction of the activity that is "outside" the law tends to increase. The paradox for the authoritarians is the harder they push, the more people riot. In other words, it's not something you can control with (additional) legislation.
> 
> The problem is not in the Constitution. The problem is in adherence to the Constitution. The problem is in the rest of the law - and the stuff they call "regulations" which aren't really laws but yet they are.
> 
> Listen, any six year old can read the Constitution and listen to the news and get the P-300. You know what a P-300 is Graham? That's a brain wave, it's what happens 300 milliseconds after your brain says "does not compute". If you hear a sentence like "I take my coffee with cream and dog", 300 msec after that last word your brain register a "huh what" and that's called a P-300. You can measure it, and it happens every time.
> 
> Why don't we try a little experiment to see how good your law is?
> 
> Let's take a bunch of 5th or 6th graders (who've read the Constitution at least once), and let's wire 'em up to the brain wave machine, and let's find out how they react when we tell 'em about "Free Speech Zones" on public property, and "takings" that are given to private developers for profit, and yadda yadda ad nauseum.
> ...


Well... my split second reaction is you seemed to argue for courts to consist of a kindergarden class and their first reaction on whatever simplistic take on the issue is the verdict? Is that really your case?

Were LAW about those several pages of the constitution you may have read in grade school...it sure would make it quite abstract...and often the outcome would be just anyones guess.    HOWEVER.....Precedent.. courtt rulings... STICK. Big cases...Brown v Board of Education, Roe V Wade.....are not seen in the Constitution in it's original format. Citizens United? It was nowhere just a few years ago.   ALL are now " Law Of The Land....until further notice.

If just "read the Constitution"  was enough... people ought to be getting Law degrees in High School.

----------


## old wood

> What if the law is "against the law"?  If the law is sacrosanct does that mean it operates in a vacuum or are there principles that determine what legitimate laws may be passed?  If the "Law of the Land" i.e. the Constitution states troops cannot be quartered in your home can the legislature pass a law requiring troops to be quartered in your home?  If the Supreme Court were to uphold such a law would it then be legitimate.  Would it be right and proper to jail those who would not allow troops to be quartered in their home?  
> 
> No weasels, like well if this were that.  Its a plain cut restriction period, no equivocation.  Can the legislature ignore the law of the land if the courts say its ok to do so?


I think the example may not do what you had in mind..as you propose a legislative act in very SPECIFIC violation of one of the least fuzzy...and almost obscure parts of the Bill Of Rights,. That said... define TROOPS... define QUARTERD.... is HOME any property.. or the specific house you reside in.
Suppose you are an American, mainly in America but you owned a home in Bastogne in WWII...and the US Army decided to use it as a field hospital or a command center HQ?  Do you have a case?   The US Army in fact DID often quarter troops..ABROAD...in WWII.  Probably.. all were owned by the French locals who chose to evacuate from the battle zone.. yet...what if?  Well... it being WWII.....my hunch is that the Court would say the American owner... was not living there at the time...so  "Home" was not relevant.  If the " Home" was  abroad... yet occupied by an American owner.....who OBJECTS.....that's a bit of a gray area. The likely outcome? The US Army... chooses plan B rather than have a hassle.  Another possible outcome...the Courts decide...fuck it..it's WWII.  We won't hear the case.

That's another thing.....I could have what ought to be a good case..and in the first court.. I lose (wrong lawyer) then on appeal.. the next court.. they just don't like me or my stance.. won't hear it.  A few years later.. maybe the court is different.

IMO...a future court will dump " Citizens United"  It passed on pure ideology.

----------


## Hansel

> I think the example may not do what you had in mind..as you propose a legislative act in very SPECIFIC violation of one of the least fuzzy...and almost obscure parts of the Bill Of Rights,. That said... define TROOPS... define QUARTERD.... is HOME any property.. or the specific house you reside in.
> Suppose you are an American, mainly in America but you owned a home in Bastogne in WWII...and the US Army decided to use it as a field hospital or a command center HQ?  Do you have a case?   The US Army in fact DID often quarter troops..ABROAD...in WWII.  Probably.. all were owned by the French locals who chose to evacuate from the battle zone.. yet...what if?  Well... it being WWII.....my hunch is that the Court would say the American owner... was not living there at the time...so  "Home" was not relevant.  If the " Home" was  abroad... yet occupied by an American owner.....who OBJECTS.....that's a bit of a gray area. The likely outcome? The US Army... chooses plan B rather than have a hassle.  Another possible outcome...the Courts decide...fuck it..it's WWII.  We won't hear the case.
> 
> That's another thing.....I could have what ought to be a good case..and in the first court.. I lose (wrong lawyer) then on appeal.. the next court.. they just don't like me or my stance.. won't hear it.  A few years later.. maybe the court is different.
> 
> IMO...a future court will dump " Citizens United"  It passed on pure ideology.


Perhaps it was wrong to quarter troops in French houses but one must look at the reason they were there.  Maybe the end justified the means, so to speak?

----------


## Hansel

> Really?
> 
> Hairy Fucking Reid refusing to allow bills from the House onto the floor of the Senate is how you see the Constitution "working"?
> 
> King Ebola simply writing rules and telling bureaucrats to do things they don't have the authority to do, simply because he's too stupid to work with Congress is how the Constitution "works"?
> 
> King Ebola attacking Libya and helping al qeada and other terrorists, completely without any form of consent from Congress, that's how the Constitution "works"?
> 
> The Supreme Court flatly declaring an incompetently written law a "tax" when the actual text of the bill calls the penalties um...PENALTIES, merely to make the bill appear to be Constitutional to the trutly stupid people who claim what the Courts say is "law"...that's how the Constitution works?
> ...


How does Reid get away with suppressing thee bills?  He must have some leg to stand on, to his warped way of thinking.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I think the example may not do what you had in mind..as you propose a legislative act in very SPECIFIC violation of one of the least fuzzy...and almost obscure parts of the Bill Of Rights,. That said... define TROOPS... define QUARTERD.... is HOME any property.. or the specific house you reside in.
> Suppose you are an American, mainly in America but you owned a home in Bastogne in WWII...and the US Army decided to use it as a field hospital or a command center HQ?  Do you have a case?   The US Army in fact DID often quarter troops..ABROAD...in WWII.  Probably.. all were owned by the French locals who chose to evacuate from the battle zone.. yet...what if?  Well... it being WWII.....my hunch is that the Court would say the American owner... was not living there at the time...so  "Home" was not relevant.  If the " Home" was  abroad... yet occupied by an American owner.....who OBJECTS.....that's a bit of a gray area. The likely outcome? The US Army... chooses plan B rather than have a hassle.  Another possible outcome...the Courts decide...fuck it..it's WWII.  We won't hear the case.
> 
> That's another thing.....I could have what ought to be a good case..and in the first court.. I lose (wrong lawyer) then on appeal.. the next court.. they just don't like me or my stance.. won't hear it.  A few years later.. maybe the court is different.
> 
> IMO...a future court will dump " Citizens United"  It passed on pure ideology.



LOL LOL LOL 

I knew there would be a weasel out there somewhere.  Liberals could find 10 different meanings in Push Button To Walk

----------


## old wood

> Clarification  @Devil505
> 
> If the Constitution were abused, how would the government behave?
> 
> If the Constitution were abused, how could you tell it's being abused?


  The method...also in the Constitution..is COURTS are  able to determine IF the Constitution is abused.. and can void whatever is not legal. It happened plenty.  

How would the Govt behave?   Well...with no SPECIFICS that's a rather  speculative qwuestion.  But..The LAW is that the Courts rule and you'd better follow it.   Nixon's downfall included defiance of Court rulings... and he was about to be impeached and also removed.

In theory... you could have a stacked court system aligned with a congress and Presidency of similar ideology where they in effect collude to  pervert some aspect of the Constitution.  That.. is SUBTLE WAYS.. happens.  It then is on the VOTING CITIZENS to  elect BETTER.    Takes awhile... you don't want to let shit get THAT bad.  BAD concepts and choices... can take a LOT to fix.

Say.. you had "car trouble".......have to have it towed 50 miles at midnight .  The Mechanic.. checks it out. " Your Tranny burnreed out.. how fast were you going in low gear?  The reason you hit a tree...well with zero brake fluid.. the brakes wont work.. and on wet roads your bald tires would be a problem even at that.  That smoke? Well.. probably  the rings wore out..but maybe a piston is busted.  You were lucky to get around the block"     So.......are you sayiong this will  not be fixed by tommorrow morning?

"maybe I'm not getting through... tommorrow this  ought to be scrap metal."

When WE THE PEOPLE get SCAMMED.....elect assholes... it's like that.  You let everything get messed up and FIX IT... ain't a quickie.  Worse?  Now the SCAM ain't just a LOCAL thing.. it's a nationwide well planned ripoff designed to be hard to fix.. the political equal of a well done Computer virus with trojans, loaders..the whole mess. Not easy to clean it up.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No....it's about what our actual laws *ARE* ......not how we arrived at them.


We know what the laws are.

*Corrupt.*

That's what they are.




> You're arguing that your philosophy trumps actual law.
> It doesn't.


Yes, it does.

Yes it does, Devil.

You more than anyone, oughta be aware of that truth.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Natural law is in the eye of the beholder and therefore useless to try to build a society around..
> Only when laws are codified, accepted by the majority and enforceable do they have any relevance.


Sorry but that has to be one of the single most ignorant posts I've ever read on this forum (or any other, for that matter).

This post displays a *profound* misunderstanding of human nature, and if this viewpoint is acted upon politically it actually becomes dangerous to the rest of us.

How about American history, Devil? Was there codified law before there was a society? Hmm?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The method...also in the Constitution..is COURTS are  able to determine IF the Constitution is abused.. and can void whatever is not legal. It happened plenty.  
> 
> How would the Govt behave?   Well...with no SPECIFICS that's a rather  speculative qwuestion.  But..The LAW is that the Courts rule and you'd better follow it.   Nixon's downfall included defiance of Court rulings... and he was about to be impeached and also removed.
> 
> In theory... you could have a stacked court system aligned with a congress and Presidency of similar ideology where they in effect collude to  pervert some aspect of the Constitution.  That.. is SUBTLE WAYS.. happens.  It then is on the VOTING CITIZENS to  elect BETTER.    Takes awhile... you don't want to let shit get THAT bad.  BAD concepts and choices... can take a LOT to fix.
> 
> Say.. you had "car trouble".......have to have it towed 50 miles at midnight .  The Mechanic.. checks it out. " Your Tranny burnreed out.. how fast were you going in low gear?  The reason you hit a tree...well with zero brake fluid.. the brakes wont work.. and on wet roads your bald tires would be a problem even at that.  That smoke? Well.. probably  the rings wore out..but maybe a piston is busted.  You were lucky to get around the block"     So.......are you sayiong this will  not be fixed by tommorrow morning?
> 
> "maybe I'm not getting through... tommorrow this  ought to be scrap metal."
> ...



So, the Constitution means just what I say it means neither more nor less?

----------


## Victory

> The method...also in the Constitution..is C*OURTS are  able to determine IF the Constitution is abused*.. and can void whatever is not legal. It happened plenty.  
> 
> How would the Govt behave?   Well...with no SPECIFICS that's a rather  speculative qwuestion.  But..The LAW is that the Courts rule and you'd better follow it.   Nixon's downfall included defiance of Court rulings... and he was about to be impeached and also removed.
> 
> In theory... you could have a stacked court system aligned with a congress and Presidency of similar ideology where they in effect collude to  pervert some aspect of the Constitution.  That.. is SUBTLE WAYS.. happens.  It then is on the VOTING CITIZENS to  elect BETTER.    Takes awhile... you don't want to let shit get THAT bad.  BAD concepts and choices... can take a LOT to fix.
> 
> Say.. you had "car trouble".......have to have it towed 50 miles at midnight .  The Mechanic.. checks it out. " Your Tranny burnreed out.. how fast were you going in low gear?  The reason you hit a tree...well with zero brake fluid.. the brakes wont work.. and on wet roads your bald tires would be a problem even at that.  That smoke? Well.. probably  the rings wore out..but maybe a piston is busted.  You were lucky to get around the block"     So.......are you sayiong this will  not be fixed by tommorrow morning?
> 
> "maybe I'm not getting through... tommorrow this  ought to be scrap metal."
> ...


And so if the courts are abused and corrupt justices are appointed to the Supreme Court, how would you know the Constitution is in danger?

If the Constitution were the Titanic and the captain and crew, a.k.a. The Supreme Court, told you everything is okay how would you know it's sinking?

----------


## Graham Garner

"No Amendment provides any Rights . . . . "

Really?  What about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?  Where did those *rights* come from?

Can you name one right that is not subject to law?  No.

----------


## Victory

> "No Amendment provides any Rights . . . . "
> 
> Really?  What about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?  Where did those *rights* come from?



God.

Next.

----------


## Graham Garner

Well, there are no God-given rights. I take it that you are referring to your right to worship God. If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. The right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.

----------


## JustPassinThru

So then "rights" are arbitrary determinations made by Man.

By individual men, in other words.  Subject to revision as is expedient for the current agenda.

Natural law then, doesn't exist.

No matter the observations of a thousand years; that some things test True and some things do not work.

----------


## Graham Garner

By "Natural Law" you mean "Natural Rights.  There are no natural rights.  There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.

----------


## Hansel

> Well, there are no God-given rights. I take it that you are referring to your right to worship God. If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. The right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.


Our secular laws often have a basis in ancient Judaic or early Christian principles of morality, hence the Judeo-Christian system of laws.

I think it is important that church and state be separated, both for the good of  the state as well as for the good of the church.   IMO  our religious tenets are our moral 
rudders, so to speak, and when people lose sight of these tenets then civilization breaks down.

Some people object to the idea that our moral standards have roots in ancient religious doctrine but upon looking at them there is nothing magical or strange about them.  For example, most of the Ten Commandments are simply common sense rules of behavior and these were a part of Judaism even though Christians have adopted them. Even the mitzvath (sp?), which is over 600 rules of life, apply to Christians for the most part although some of it pertains only to Jews living in Israel.

----------


## sotmfs

> Then find a way to stop the suicidal maniacs and leave the law-biding citizens alone.


That is not the way it works.Some people use guns to indiscriminately(or not)kill people,the prevention-ban guns.
Some people abuse drugs,the prevention-ban drugs.
Some dads avoid paying child support,the prevention-treat all dads as dead beat dads.
Some people gamble to an extreme,the prevention-ban gambling except state controlled gambling.

----------


## Victory

> Well, there are no God-given rights.


Yes there are.  Read the Declaration of Independence.




> I take it that you are referring to your right to worship God.


No.  I'm talking about the "unalienable" rights the right to worship God in whatever way I wish being merely one of them.  You're a lawyer, right?  You can't be serious in thinking that is the begining and end of it.




> If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine.


Nope.  If there's anything to be gleaned from the discussions in the Constitutional Congress it is that the bible was the most referenced literary work in the entire process--it is that our nation was founded on religious principles like free will, separation of church and state, and self-defense.  I've posted passages in the bible in previous threads proving this.  I've included just a couple in my sig.  If you don't believe this nation was founded on religious principles you don't believe your own eyes.




> The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom.


They also knew Moses was the original separator of church and state and they figured if it's good enough for Moses it's good enough for us.




> The right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God.


The right to worship freely without government interference is GRANTED by God.  Government can support that right to its prosperity or obstruct it to its peril.




> It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.


It's time you stop pontificating on these legal matters and crack a book.  There's a lot that passes for "knowledge" that you need to unlearn.

----------


## Hansel

> That is not the way it works.Some people use guns to indiscriminately(or not)kill people,the prevention-ban guns.
> Some people abuse drugs,the prevention-ban drugs.
> Some dads avoid paying child support,the prevention-treat all dads as dead beat dads.
> Some people gamble to an extreme,the prevention-ban gambling except state controlled gambling.


I think that a practical objective is to reduce or limit the death and injury caused by firearms in the hands of folks who are deranged or not in control of their senses.
Is any one advocating a complete ban of firearms, not me?  

As racial tensions increase in the larger cities I think having a concealed carry license is appropriate because the police cannot be everywhere every time.  A person with a nihilistic outlook on life has nothing to lose by blowing someone way and then ending up on a gurney with a needle in his arm. IMO these are hate crimes plain and simple, with the exception that only whites commit hate crimes.  Yeah right.  There is only one way to resolve this issue, just plant the sob where he stands.

----------


## sotmfs

> Millions of Americans, including myself, supported letting that BS law expire.  Passage of that bill was one of the many reasons Americans voted a Republican majority into Congress and for a Republican President in 2000.
> 
> Shredding the Constitution to save a few lives isn't good enough.  Next you'll ban cars, matches and swimming pools for the same reasons.


Not all cars.Only cars that have the ability to go faster than the legal speed limit.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Not all cars.Only cars that have the ability to go faster than the legal speed limit.


Yes!  That speed being one which isn't capable of mowing down more than 10 people at a time.  

To pull a number out of my ass like the Left Wing Anti-Gun Mob, I suggest 15 miles an hour.  No reason, just a number.  More economical on gas too!  Win-Win!

----------


## sotmfs

> You could be right on that point Max. The blacks have a separate and dangerous set of social rules though.  I don't think anyone is saying that e
> tighter gun controls will reduce black on black homicide but hopefully it would prevent  fools from spraying school children with lead.
> 
> The blacks have made their nest so now they can lie in it.  Life itself doesn't seem to mean much to many blacks and having a gun to shoot up the place must make them feel empowered,, for what I don't know.   Laws are made to protect innocent and law abiding people so seeing a black doing harm with a firearm just supports my contention that they are friggin' animals.


Really?
   Laws are made to protect innocent and law abiding people so seeing a white  doing harm with a firearm just supports my contention that they  are friggin' animals.

----------


## sotmfs

> Overall this has been a very good thread! Thanks everyone.


You are welcome.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Really?


I think @johnson sincerely believes blacks are an inferior race and that they need whites to guide them or eliminated them as "friggin' animals".  

That's a common opinion on this forum.  Not my opinion since I don't have to denigrate others to boost my ego.  I'll shoot any asshole who needs shooting regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference.  My philosophy leans toward "_I don't give a fuck who you are.  Just don't fuck with me.  Live long and Prosper_".

----------

sotmfs (11-04-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> I have popcorn. Want some?


Yes,as long as there is no salt or butter on it.Too much of that will kill you!!

----------


## sotmfs

> Because we know liberals,  all they do is lie to try and pass a law. You could care less if guns were taken from everyone.


A simplification.

----------


## sotmfs

> Education on the high-school level, in fact as a graduation REQUIREMENT, would eliminate the mystique of a simple mechanical gadget that slaps a percussion cap and forces chemical reactions that propel a bullet.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned ONLY military veterans should be allowed to teach children anway.   Society should place their best examples for the children to emulate.


Really?
Any and all military veterans?

----------


## sotmfs

> I think only veterans should have the right to vote.  If you are not willing to defend the country when why should you have a say in how its run?


Yes!! Only veterans should have the right to hold public office.Also,only veterans should be able to own land.Veterans should also determine who can join the military.

----------


## Victory

> By "Natural Law" you mean "Natural Rights.  There are no natural rights.  There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.


No.  If I meant Natural Rights I would have written "Natural Rights."  I meant Natural Law.  And I've posted that you are really doing nothing more than providing talking points for positive law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

 Positive law is distinct from Natural Law and the principles upon which this country is founded.  Man "posits" positive law.  THAT is your law.  Natural Law is called out in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution.  You have (wrongfully) applied positive law to the Constitution.

----------


## sotmfs

> Land mines are already illegal.  So are grenades, mortars, tanks with working cannons. 
> 
> How does a magazine with over 10 rounds suddenly become a military arm?  M-16 magazines are 30 rounds.  Shouldn't it be magazines with 29 rounds an less?


Sears sold a rifle made by J.C. Higgins in the 1950s that held 17 to 25 rounds.It was a semi-automatic. http://soldusa.com/rainworx/detail.asp?id=5131

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-04-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> I dont understand this "Wild West" mentality - is it really necessary that we go about toting guns?  Can Americans be that fearful, that paranoid, that they need a gun just to feel safe, to feel protected? I certainly hope not.


How about not needing a gun but wanting a gun.I like guns.I do not need a gun or want a gun to feel safe.

----------


## sotmfs

> One could also say the same thing about dynamite. It is a useful tool but its danger warrants controls on its use and possession.


Of course,that is why it is controlled.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> "No Amendment provides any Rights . . . . "
> 
> Really?  What about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?  Where did those *rights* come from?
> 
> Can you name one right that is not subject to law?  No.


We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, which include the Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

----------

nonsqtr (11-04-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Getting a CC permit is ridiculously easy in most localities...but just having a weapon gives one a false sense of security in that you really need tactical training in a stressful situation to be safe yourself and not a danger to others.
> Civilians have accès to many places where you can get such training at fairly reasonable rates and it's an absolute must if you plan on carrying a firearm!
> (contact your local PD and they can advise you of facilities where you can be trained)
> 
> IMO...the license and the firearm are useless without such training!


People cannot get their driver's license without passing a written and a practical test.Why not the same for a firearm?

----------


## nonsqtr

> "No Amendment provides any Rights . . . . "
> 
> Really?  What about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?  Where did those *rights* come from?


They come from God, Graham. See, that is a central issue which the legal system is completely incapable of handling.

The answer is: they come from God- and if you don't believe in God, substitute the word "biology".

It's the brain wiring, Graham. It's what makes us human. It's genetic, you can't change it and neither can the President. It is distinctly what makes us human - in other words, everything else is variable, but that remains constant. Everything else is variable - morality, law, political systems.... good and evil come and go. Everything else is variable, but human nature remains the same, it's cast in stone, immutable for as long as we are human beings.

That's where it comes from. Not from anything man might imagine or conjure up. The only way man enters into the equation is we discover things about our makeup and the way we're wired, and we try to align our political rights so they don't conflict with our natural rights.

For example, consider capitalism. As an economic and political system, it channels several of a human being's basest emotions, including greed, lust (for power in this case), covetousness, ambition, yadda yadd - it takes all of those things which would otherwise be social problems and channels them in a useful, valuable, productive direction, and that in turn carries society forwards on its crest, because from economic success comes art, and science, and all manner of "society-enhancing" benefits.

So that is an example of alignment, here we have a political and economic system which uses human behavior for a productive purpose. It works because it's aligned with the natural rights and natural behaviors of a human being.

However there are also examples of non-alignment. Prohibition is the classic case. The collection of skeert little old ladies that voted for that, the minute it became law and they saw the reality they said "gasp, what have we done" and they very quickly changed their minds and repealed it. And that will happen every time people come face to face with the results of a misalignment between natural rights and political rights.




> Can you name one right that is not subject to law?  No.


Once again Graham, my rights are not "subject" to *anything*, least of all your corrupt law.

I am not a subject Graham, I am a citizen, and my rights take precedence over your law.

The Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" me anything Graham, all it does is prevent the government from trampling on my rights *that already exist* and existed long before your Constitution was even a gleam in anyone's eye.

You sure are a woefully misguided lawyer, Mr. Misguided Lawyer. I would never ask you to represent me on any matter, because it's already perfectly clear you'd be representing something "other than me", because you're misguided and you think it'd be your misguided duty.

----------


## nonsqtr

> We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, which include the Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Precisely. 

Can't beat that, short, sweet, and right to the point.

----------


## freyasman

> By "Natural Law" you mean "Natural Rights.  There are no natural rights.  There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.


People who think and believe as you do, are *why* many of us keep guns. You have a very dangerous and Orwellian way of looking at the world, and we fear people like you coming into any sort of authority.

----------

nonsqtr (11-04-2014),Victory (11-04-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> People cannot get their driver's license without passing a written and a practical test.Why not the same for a firearm?


Because driving isn't a right. 

Should we require people to take a written and a practical test to vote?

----------


## nonsqtr

> By "Natural Law" you mean "Natural Rights.  There are no natural rights.  There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.


Graham, you're just being an idiot. We proved to those asshole redcoats that there's such a thing as *natural rights*, and we can prove it to you too, if you need convincing - and that is in fact most of the course of modern history, is people proving to the naysayers again and again and again, and again, that natural rights trump political rights every single time.

I don't expect you to understand this at all, Graham - but "1949 China". Deal with it, pal. Your worst nightmare is going to happen right here at home if you keep going with this idiotic "all authority emanates from the government" bullshit. We'll prove you wrong, Graham. We'll have to, just to keep people like you from trying to "govern" people like me. There's way more of me than there is of you, Mr. Lawyer. We don't want to be governed by a corrupt law. We demand justice, and we'll get it.

----------


## Victory

> They come from God, Graham. See, that is a central issue which the legal system is completely incapable of handling.
> 
> The answer is: they come from God- and if you don't believe in God, substitute the word "biology".
> 
> It's the brain wiring, Graham. It's what makes us human. It's genetic, you can't change it and neither can the President. It is distinctly what makes us human - in other words, everything else is variable, but that remains constant. Everything else is variable - morality, law, political systems.... good and evil come and go. Everything else is variable, but human nature remains the same, it's cast in stone, immutable for as long as we are human beings.
> 
> That's where it comes from. Not from anything man might imagine or conjure up. The only way man enters into the equation is we discover things about our makeup and the way we're wired, and we try to align our political rights so they don't conflict with our natural rights.
> 
> For example, consider capitalism. As an economic and political system, it channels several of a human being's basest emotions, including greed, lust (for power in this case), covetousness, ambition, yadda yadd - it takes all of those things which would otherwise be social problems and channels them in a useful, valuable, productive direction, and that in turn carries society forwards on its crest, because from economic success comes art, and science, and all manner of "society-enhancing" benefits.
> ...


I got tired of saying things like this over and over.  So I just said, "God."  He asked a question, he got an answer.

----------


## Victory

> Graham, you're just being an idiot. We proved to those asshole redcoats that there's such a thing as *natural rights*, and we can prove it to you too, if you need convincing - and that is in fact most of the course of modern history, is people proving to the naysayers again and again and again, and again, that natural rights trump political rights every single time.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand this at all, Graham - but "1949 China". Deal with it, pal. Your worst nightmare is going to happen right here at home if you keep going with this idiotic "all authority emanates from the government" bullshit. We'll prove you wrong, Graham. We'll have to, just to keep people like you from trying to "govern" people like me. There's way more of me than there is of you, Mr. Lawyer. We don't want to be governed by a corrupt law. We demand justice, and we'll get it.


It's as if he never heard of the word "revolution" or has no concept of the idea of people overthrowing a government.
_
What!?  Impossible!  That's illegal!_
Yeah.  Sure it is.  And it happens anyway.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> By "Natural Law" you mean "Natural Rights.  There are no natural rights.  There are only legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.


No, I mean Natural LAW.

Some things work and some don't.  Laws of physics dictate that in our environment.

Some economic principles prove true and some don't; because of the universal nature of human drives and motivations.

Economic laws.

These are Natural Laws.  If you try and construct a society contrary to Natural Law, as was the dictatorial Soviet Union...you have strife and hostility and no advancement and grinding poverty and eventual collapse.  As it happened there was an alternate model of civilization immediately available; the fall of the Soviet Union was a gentle one and one which, for a time, reflected Natural Law as Enlightenment philosophers first came to understand it.

Our own society no longer recognizes that.  It recognizes force; and it recognizes "pull" and it is forcing those without pull and without power to surrender half their earned money, which represents half their work output, to the State - for redistribution to the idle.  This de-motivates both workers and leaches; but in the process, these beneficiaries of Power and Pull put themselves in the money stream, and live as well or better than most productive people.

This is unsustainable.  It violates Natural Laws of human drive and relationships; and it will end badly.

----------


## Devil505

> So tell me:
> 
> If the Constitution were abused, what would it look like?


What would it look like?
Picture : Roberts, Alito,Scalia and Thomas giving the finger to America......again!

----------


## JustPassinThru

Christ, you're tiresome.

----------

Albert Reincarnated (11-05-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Because driving isn't a right. 
> 
> Should we require people to take a written and a practical test to vote?


It would be if cars existed in 1776.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It would be if cars existed in 1776.


Owning horses isn't a right, but a good point would be that just because rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean we don't have them.

----------

Victory (11-04-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Owning horses isn't a right, but a good point would be that just because rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean we don't have them.


You are a good friend.
I can count on you to respond to your post as I would have if I could not count on you!

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-04-2014)

----------


## Victory

> What would it look like?
> Picture : Roberts, Alito,Scalia and Thomas giving the finger to America......again!


Do you mean to say the Constitution is being abused or do you mean to dodge?

What do you do about the SC justices "giving the finger" to America?

What should Americans do if they see the same abuse you see?

----------


## Devil505

> Do you mean to say the Constitution is being abused or do you mean to dodge?


Almost all the 5 to 4 RW decisions where unConstitutional...imo.  (Bush v Gore, Citizens United, etc)
But they are still the law and improper opinions are not abuse..







> What do you do about the SC justices "giving the finger" to America?
> 
> What should Americans do if they see the same abuse you see?


Follow the Constitution and impeach them if we have the votes or simply elect Presidents who will appoint better justices in the future.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Almost all the 5 to 4 RW decisions where unConstitutional...imo.  (Bush v Gore, Citizens United, etc)
> But they are still the law and improper opinions are not abuse..


Really Devil? Improper opinions are not abuse?

Our Supreme Court Justices stripped the political rights of millions of Americans with improper opinions. Just the Schedules alone relate to over a million individuals un-Constitutionally locked up and unceremoniously stripped of their political right to redress.

I would say that is absolutely abuse. 

Remember Devil, pot is illegal because of William Randolph Hearst.

Yep, I'm pretty sure that is abuse.




> Follow the Constitution and impeach them if we have the votes or simply elect Presidents who will appoint better justices in the future.


And meanwhile we have to suffer? Devil, one shit-for-brains Justice could bring down our entire political system with a "bad decision". Look at Roberts, that stupid sonuvabitch pulled a "decision" *out of his butt*, there was absolutely no constitutional rationale and there was no element of precedent whatsoever. The problem is that now it *is* precedent, which means even if we find an upstanding Justice with guts, he or she is still going to have a hard time setting things right.

What Roberts did is not only a "bad decision", it's a *clear and unequivocal violation of his Oath of Office*. But he won't be impeached because the Republicans will never allow it. In other words our country suffers because of partisan politics, and it's the exact same way with the Democrats, vis-à-vis Benghazi and Ebola and the IRS and most of all that *illegal fucking wiretapping* that our scumbag fucking representatives pulled out of their butts 'cause they had lousy fucking intelligence and somehow *We* were made responsible for that even though *We* already pay our CIA 58 billion dollars a year and even though *We* pay each and every penny of the Congressional salaries.

Goddamit Devil, if this idiotic partisan fray keeps up then those of us who still have any sanity left are going to pull the plug on the corrupt system that supports it. That Sword of Damocles is now hanging in the air and people are talking about it hanging in the air, and the next step is someone pulls it down and lets it do its thing. If anyone in Weaselton still had a brain cell they'd never have let this get even as far as the discussion stage, whoever's running this show has complete shit for brains and they oughta be removed from any positions of power and influence, *quickly*.

Our checks and balances, the very glue that holds our political system together, have been destroyed, and the stark reality is there may be no way of getting them back. Short of the very unpleasant option of a total re-do from the ground up.

----------


## Sled Dog

> 1. The 'right' to keep & bear arms is like many other rights.. it is not absolute, but is mitigated by the collective, as other rights are.


Um...no.

The Constitution explicitly forbids infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

There's even a friggin' period at the end of the Second Amendment, leaving no room for ifs, ands or buttinskies.




> You cannot say limits to free speech destroys free speech.


Yes I can.

That's because I have freedom of speech protected by the Constitution and can say anything I want.

What I cannot do is use my freedom of speech to harm others.   Harming others is not allowed by the Constitution, and thus do we have criminal laws for people who shoot others with their guns or shoot their mouths off and commit slander and libel.  There is also the fact that freedom of speech cannot be used in fraud.  Again, the freedom of speech does not extend to the freedom to cause harm.  Nor does the freedom of speech extend to perjury, to the Rapist's dismay.

Mere hurt feelings aren't protected, though.   

You may note that the Second Amendment states "to KEEP and BEAR arms".  Says nothing about shooting innocent persons.  The Framers made the sad mistake of assuming the American people would jealously defend their liberties and not elect entire hordes of completely treasonous scoundrels.  So it was assumed that the states would write reasonable laws regarding the confluence of criminal activity and gun use.

Nobody expected Rodents.





> That is anarchy logic, demanding absolute freedom in everything, & implying any limits are 'statist'.


No, it's just your strawman.




> 2.Every one of the bill of rights has limits.. there is not total freedom of the press, or speech, or gun ownership, or any individual liberty. It is valid for the collective to place MINIMAL limits on individual freedoms, & those are usually driven by population density. The more we pile on each other, the more regulations we need. 3. the tricky balance is to preserve as much of the individual freedom as possible, while not infringing on the collective freedoms of others. 4. It's too hard to communicate without carriage returns & proper formatting, but i can expand on this when i get to a real computer, that knows what a carriage return is..


It isn't valid for the Collective to do anything.   The LEGISLATURE passes the laws, not the mobs.   And my preceding comments negate what you said so there's no point in my repeating just because you have.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think the example may not do what you had in mind..as you propose a legislative act in very SPECIFIC violation of one of the least fuzzy...and almost obscure parts of the Bill Of Rights,. That said... define TROOPS... define QUARTERD.... is HOME any property.. or the specific house you reside in.
> Suppose you are an American, mainly in America but you owned a home in Bastogne in WWII...and the US Army decided to use it as a field hospital or a command center HQ? Do you have a case? The US Army in fact DID often quarter troops..ABROAD...in WWII. Probably.. all were owned by the French locals who chose to evacuate from the battle zone.. yet...what if? Well... it being WWII.....my hunch is that the Court would say the American owner... was not living there at the time...so "Home" was not relevant. If the " Home" was abroad... yet occupied by an American owner.....who OBJECTS.....that's a bit of a gray area. The likely outcome? The US Army... chooses plan B rather than have a hassle. Another possible outcome...the Courts decide...fuck it..it's WWII. We won't hear the case.
> 
> That's another thing.....I could have what ought to be a good case..and in the first court.. I lose (wrong lawyer) then on appeal.. the next court.. they just don't like me or my stance.. won't hear it. A few years later.. maybe the court is different.
> 
> IMO...a future court will dump " Citizens United" It passed on pure ideology.


You have any clue that the Constitution was written to protect the people of the United States, not the useless cowardly cheese-eating surrender monkeys of France?  If the French wanted to stop the US from using the occasional building as our military quarters while we were rescuing them, all they had to do was go back to sending their own jews to the extermination camps.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Almost all the 5 to 4 RW decisions where unConstitutional...imo. (Bush v Gore, Citizens United, etc)


Funny, isn't it, how he picks the WRONG ONES, the ones that were decided correctly?

It's like he's reading a script and has no real clue about anything.

----------


## Sled Dog

> How does Reid get away with suppressing thee bills? He must have some leg to stand on, to his warped way of thinking.


Fascist like Hairy Racist "No Discernible Negro Dialect" Reid understand that there is not morality, only power.

Which is why we should have a pot of tar and a bag of feathers handy for people just like him.

----------


## Sled Dog

> And so if the courts are abused and corrupt justices are appointed to the Supreme Court, how would you know the Constitution is in danger?


 @Devil505 and the Rodents would stop complaining about the courts.

----------


## Sled Dog

> "No Amendment provides any Rights . . . . "
> 
> Really? What about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution? Where did those *rights* come from?
> 
> Can you name one right that is not subject to law? No.


Those rights are PROTECTED, not granted.

Also, it's not surprising in the least that you omitted the Ninth Amendment.  After all, the Ninth Amendment protects, among other things, the right of dissent.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Really?
> Any and all military veterans?


I'd ask you to think about it, but the reality is that foolish questions bore me.  So don't bother.   Just tell somebody, but not us, how you feel about the matter.

----------


## Sled Dog

> People cannot get their driver's license without passing a written and a practical test.Why not the same for a firearm?


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See any mention of the "right" to drive carts and wagons in the Constitution?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Precisely. 
> 
> Can't beat that, short, sweet, and right to the point.


Except there's no Creator. That messes up that assumption quite severely.

The reality is that the term "right" is a verbal shortcut that recognizes the underlying reality. People don't "have rights", but they do own their own bodies. Rights are nothing more that limits on what others can do to the body that has these so-called "rights".

People don't have "freedom of speech", nobody else has any right to put duct-tape over their mouth, though I'm betting King Ebola has wanted to do that to Biden often.

People have freedom of religion, a so-called right, because there's no rational authority for anyone else to interfere, unless they're setting the woods on fire.

People are not property, all the so-called "rights" descend from that simple axiom.

What the Constitution does is quite simple.  It arrogates to the federal government certain powers that clearly quell certain liberties the people would otherwise have, such as coining money and issuing patents and declaring war, because a coherent society cannot exist without rational limits imposed on human behavior.

And the Constitution sets aside other freedoms as activities unsuitable for the federal government but appropriate to state and local governments.  Basic federalism principle.

All the Bill of Rights does is highlight the rights the people retain, or, in other words, highlights powers the federal government flatly is not allowed to exercise.   The Fourteenth Amendment extends those limits to the states.

The Constitution does not create one single right of any kind.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Except there's no Creator. That messes up that assumption quite severely.


Doesn't matter. A rose by any other name... like I said, if you don't like the word "God", substitute the word "biology". The point is it's your genetic makeup and your brain wiring. Not something man can change - especially not by legislation.




> The reality is that the term "right" is a verbal shortcut that recognizes the underlying reality. People don't "have rights", but they do own their own bodies. Rights are nothing more that limits on what others can do to the body that has these so-called "rights".


Of course. It's a vocabulary. (Lawyers are expected to understand it, yes?)  :Smile: 




> People don't have "freedom of speech", nobody else has any right to put duct-tape over their mouth, though I'm betting King Ebola has wanted to do that to Biden often.


That is true. The First doesn't grant "Freedom Of Speech", it simply says "Congress shall make no law". It's a limitation on government. "All" of the Bill of Rights is that way. Lawyers should know that too, yes?  :Angry20: 




> People have freedom of religion, a so-called right, because there's no rational authority for anyone else to interfere, unless they're setting the woods on fire.


Well, "religion" is a euphemism for *belief*. 'Course back in the day they still had a thing about heresy, so they couldn't actually use that word "belief", because there were still witches being burned and all that. Same as slavery, one does at some point need to actually understand the principles and understand how they were implemented "at the time".




> People are not property, all the so-called "rights" descend from that simple axiom.


Well, it may be what they call in math a 'lemma' or a fundamental assumption. "I own myself", therefore...

The clever bastards have tried to pull a fast one on us though, they've tried to separate the issue of ownership from the issue of control. It's almost as if the liberals were trying to convince us we don't really "own" ourselves, we merely "rent".  :Smile: 




> What the Constitution does is quite simple.  It arrogates to the federal government certain powers that clearly quell certain liberties the people would otherwise have, such as coining money and issuing patents and declaring war, because a coherent society cannot exist without rational limits imposed on human behavior.


Agreed. We voluntarily make these tradeoffs because they're in our individual and collective "enlightened self-interest".




> And the Constitution sets aside other freedoms as activities unsuitable for the federal government but appropriate to state and local governments.  Basic federalism principle.


Yes sir. It seems the Reconstruction was really the major event in our history when the equation of "limitations on federal powers" changed. 'Course lately all bets are off and the whole thing's gone exponential, but tracing it back historically this is when it really began, when FedGov got scared to death of the idea of wayward States. 

And do you know "why" they were scared to death? Because that war actually bankrupted the country. Lincoln had to borrow money from the Russian Jew bankers to finish the war, and by the end of it this country was so deeply in debt that he had no choice but to nationalize the currency and start issuing promissory notes as collateral (that was part of the National Currency Act of 1864). That's when it all started, all of our problem can be traced back to FedGov's massive over-reaction to the Civil War. They do stuff like that (they over-reacted to 9/11 too, and that caused problems too). And then shortly thereafter we see the Slaughterhouse Cases where the Supreme Court okays this kind of a power grab at the state and municipal levels too, and while all this is going on FedGov is doing its best to make each and every state financially and economically dependent on it (on the presumption that secession would then become de-facto impossible).




> All the Bill of Rights does is highlight the rights the people retain, or, in other words, *highlights powers the federal government flatly is not allowed to exercise*.


Yep. You'd think a lawyer would know that, wouldn't you?  :Wink:  




> The Fourteenth Amendment extends those limits to the states.


Well.... it should, yes. It seems clear that its intent was to do so. But our Supreme Morons created this idiotic little issue called "incorporation", and for some *idiotic* reason they "decided" it was necessary to split off the rights and incorporate each one individually. 




> The Constitution does not create one single right of any kind.


Agreed. And maybe I commend you on a very lucid post. This stuff is "intuitive" to us righties, and the only reason I can think of why anyone might go to great lengths to challenge it is because of a misguided political agenda.

It seems to me that anyone who understands this equation would be quite concerned at the prospect of having "representation" based on a fundamentally different set of assumptions (and one that is demonstrably self-contradictory, causing even more fear and trepidation).

Imagine that, we have lefties saying "the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is". These people have totally sold out, I remember back in the 60's when they actually had guts and a vision, they were out there protesting in the streets and speaking the truth as loud as the wind would carry their voices.

And now they're sitting here playing idiotic Orwellian games trying to convince me that the law is whatever nine robed idiots say it is. Can you imagine how TJ or Franklin or Hamilton would react to that concept? Our Founders would be rolling over in their graves hearing such a thing - and from an officer of the Court no less! It sure is going to take a lot of work to set this right. I'm not even sure it's possible anymore.

----------


## Graham Garner

Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. 

 Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
 thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
 be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
 o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
 but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
 once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
 since. 

 - Shakespeare,_ Henry The Sixth_, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78. 

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post419313
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post421709

----------


## Devil505

> Really Devil? Improper opinions are not abuse?


No...they are *opinions*.

*"I like strawberry ice  cream better than chocolate."*.......is that opinion improper or abuse?
The fact is that SC *opinions* are enforceable in law.

Our Constitution gives us legal remedies and those remedies are almost always elections.
We all have a say in who becomes a SC justice when we elect the Presidents that choose them and when we elect the Senators that confirm them.

Is our SCOTUS/Judicial Review procedure foolproof or always moral?.....Of course not. Dred Scott proves that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Has a better system been implemented or even advocated?....None that I've heard.

If you have any suggestions on a replacement for the SC.....let's hear them.

----------


## Graham Garner

Supreme Court decisions are not just opinions, they are binding as law.  This is why I was not happy with the NRA pushing the Second Amendment up to the Supreme Court.  The decisions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_ will be kicking gun owners in the ass for a long time to come.

----------


## freyasman

> Supreme Court decisions are not just opinions, they are binding as law.  This is why I was not happy with the NRA pushing the Second Amendment up to the Supreme Court.  The decisions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_ will be kicking gun owners in the ass for a long time to come.


I'm not too sure that you have a very good grasp of reality, guy. You live under a rock or something?

----------


## Graham Garner

.  .  .

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No...they are *opinions*.
> 
> *"I like strawberry ice  cream better than chocolate."*.......is that opinion improper or abuse?
> The fact is that SC *opinions* are enforceable in law.
> 
> Our Constitution gives us legal remedies and those remedies are almost always elections.
> We all have a say in who becomes a SC justice when we elect the Presidents that choose them and when we elect the Senators that confirm them.
> 
> Is our SCOTUS/Judicial Review procedure foolproof or always moral?.....Of course not. Dred Scott proves that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
> ...



When is a shoe not a shoe.  When Devil declares its actually "footwear"

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. 
> 
>  Cade: Nay, that i mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
>  thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
>  be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbled
>  o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
>  But i say, 'tis the bee's wax; for i did but seal
>  once to a thing, and i was never mine own man
>  since. 
> ...



huh???

----------


## Victory

> .  .  .


What's with this shit?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What's with this shit?


Mister Garner has cut and run.

----------


## Victory

> Except there's no Creator. That messes up that assumption quite severely.


Not in the least.  Christianity is not a prerequisite to enjoying the freedoms of the Judeo-Christian inspired Constitution.  Our founders have said as much:




> What is to become of an independent statesman?  One, who will bow the knee to no idol--who will worship nothing as a Divinity but Truth, Virtue, and his country?  I will tell you, he will be regarded more, by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses, and although he will not make his own fortune he will make the fortune of his country.

----------


## Victory

> What do you do about the SC justices "giving the finger" to America?
> 
>  What should Americans do if they see the same abuse you see?





> Follow the Constitution and impeach them if we have the votes or simply elect Presidents who will appoint better justices in the future.


But "we" don't vote on those matters.  Congress does.  We've already assumed in this scenario that the legislature and executive branch are corrupt so you can't rely upon them to impeach as per the Constitution so the question remains.

With a corrupt congress, executive, and judicial branch how would you know the Constitution is in danger and being abused?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> With a corrupt congress, executive, and judicial branch how would you know the Constitution is in danger and being abused?



Thomas Paine
Common Sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)

----------


## Victory

> Thomas Paine
> Common Sense
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)


Well, YOU know that and I know that but I don't think the Devil knows that.  I'd like to hear what the Devil uses as a moral compass to determine when and IF the nation deviates from the Constitution.

 @Devil505?  Care to enlighten us?

----------


## Devil505

> Well, YOU know that and I know that but I don't think the Devil knows that.  I'd like to hear what the Devil uses as a moral compass to determine when and IF the nation deviates from the Constitution.
> 
>  @Devil505?  Care to enlighten us?


We have free and fair elections...the colonists didn't.
Shall we rebel against yesterday's vote and demand it be set aside?

Many on the Left and middle feel that Bush authorizing torture deviated from the Constitution.
We fixed that with an election.

What's *your* moral compass that let's you wink at a President who commits war crimes? (I'd like an answer to that please)

----------


## Victory

> We have free and fair elections...


Do we?  You've got no problem with gerrymandering?  No problem with mail-in-only voting?  No problem with the electoral process incredibly vulnerable to fraud?

You've got no problem with Republicans pushing out real changers like Matt Bevin only to re-elect Mitch "Establishment" McConnell and Democrats doing exactly the same thing resulting in a perpetual Progressive vs. Progressive at the final poll?  These are free and fair elections?  This is freedom of choice?

But all that aside you make it sound like it is OUR responsibility!  Why Devil!  That's what I've been saying all along!  Are you turning coat on your Progressive overlords who have claimed it is THEIR responsibility to take care of you via Obama care, Medicare, Social Security, and high cap mag bans?  Are you suddenly a Constitutionalist?  (See you at the town hall.  Don't forget your tricorn hat.)  

Devil, what are we to do when our elections are no longer providing a choice of candidates and the voting process is a fraud?




> What's *your* moral compass that let's you wink at a President who commits war crimes? (I'd like an answer to that please)


So I'll ask you again:  Have you stopped beating your dog?

If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

----------

Sled Dog (11-06-2014)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> We have free and fair elections...the colonists didn't.
> Shall we rebel against yesterday's vote and demand it be set aside?
> 
> Many on the Left and middle feel that Bush authorizing torture deviated from the Constitution.
> We fixed that with an election.
> 
> What's *your* moral compass that let's you wink at a President who commits war crimes? (I'd like an answer to that please)


I wouldn't wink at a president who committed war crimes but we have never, to my knowledge had such a president.  Can you name the war crimes one may have committed?  Remember there was no such thing as a war crime before the end of World War 2.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No...they are *opinions*.
> 
> *"I like strawberry ice  cream better than chocolate."*.......is that opinion improper or abuse?
> The fact is that SC *opinions* are enforceable in law.
> 
> Our Constitution gives us legal remedies and those remedies are almost always elections.
> We all have a say in who becomes a SC justice when we elect the Presidents that choose them and when we elect the Senators that confirm them.
> 
> Is our SCOTUS/Judicial Review procedure foolproof or always moral?.....Of course not. Dred Scott proves that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
> ...


Here's the scenario:

*Step 1:* FedGov executes a power grab, for "whatever" reason
*Step 2:* Someone complains and the case goes to court
*Step 3:* The Supreme Court okays the power grab

and

*Step 4:* It becomes precedent

This is abuse, Devil. It's not "a" simple power grab. The entire system has failed us in cases like this, and primarily it's the *Supreme Court* that's at fault, because they're supposed to be We the Peoples' last backstop against federal power grabs, short of an outright revolution.

That's what I've been trying to tell you man, the entire system has become corrupted because of this stupid shit, they're not "simple decisions" anymore, they're complexified with money and politics and partisan factors that really should have no play in a legal justice equation.

You can't fix this kind of thing by replacing "a" Justice, or even five.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Mister Garner has cut and run.


Yuk. He posted something about "killing all the lawyers" then he erased his post and disappeared. Maybe he got scared, we were too rough on the poor guy.  :Dontknow: 

Well, that's what happens when you threaten the Peoples' natural rights. In fact that'll happen every time you threaten the Peoples' natural rights. Get used to it, it only gets more pointed and more deliberate and more forceful from here.

These kinds of assaults on our basic human rights will *not be tolerated*. Not here on the forum, and not in a court of law. You can imprison one person, but you can't imprison The People. And if you're stupid enough to try, you'll get what's coming to you.

----------


## Devil505

> I wouldn't wink at a president who committed war crimes but we have never, to my knowledge had such a president.  Can you name the war crimes one may have committed?  Remember there was no such thing as a war crime before the end of World War 2.


Torturing prisoners of war is an internationally accepted war crime and was when Bush authorized torture as a national policy.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I wouldn't wink at a president who committed war crimes but we have never, to my knowledge had such a president.  Can you name the war crimes one may have committed?  Remember there was no such thing as a war crime before the end of World War 2.


Oh please. Torture is defined as a crime against humanity by *every law in the book*, from the local to the state to the federal to the international level. George W Bush authorized the waterboarding of a single human being not once, but *three hundred times*. That is unquestionably torture, no sane human being would disagree that taking a man to within a few milliseconds of his life three hundred times under duress constitutes torture.

Yes, *George W Bush* is unquestionably a war criminal of the worst kind. He distorted the truth to start a war of aggression, and then he murdered 150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and left the rest without running water and electricity.

*George W Bush* can not set foot in 51 countries on this planet, because he would be arrested the minute he does. Including Switzerland, the most neutral country in the world (who's everyone's friend). Including Malaysia, where he's been convicted of war crimes by a UN human rights court. 

The problem in all of this is that no one in the United States has the political will to call this spade a gigantic motherfucking spade and hang that rotten bastard Bush out to dry.

And I ask you: why not?

Why is George W Bush not sitting in a federal jail cell right now, *here at home?*

After all, he's our criminal, and we're the ones who let him pee in the other direction. He's our problem, we should take care of it.

Elections aren't good enough. Elections aren't going to bring back all those dead Iraqis and they're not going to reveal what really happened on 9/11.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Torturing prisoners of war is an internationally accepted war crime and was when Bush authorized torture as a national policy.



Who has filed charges against him?  What court of law has done so?

----------

Victory (11-05-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Here's the scenario:
> 
> *Step 1:* FedGov executes a power grab, for "whatever" reason...


I read your whole post but chose to go back and stop you there:
Who decides what a "Power Grab" is?

The ACLU?
The Teaparty?
A national referendum?

See the problem here?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I read your whole post but chose to go back and stop you there:
> Who decides what a "Power Grab" is?
> 
> The ACLU?
> The Teaparty?
> A national referendum?
> 
> See the problem here?


Group photo of Devil and his minions.

----------


## Devil505

> Who has filed charges against him?  What court of law has done so?


We should have done it but it was deemed politically polarizing. (I disagree with that btw.....I think it would have showed the world that no American is above the law)

But action was taken by others:
*Bush Torture Indictment*

*Synopsis*

On February 7, 2011, two torture victims were to have filed criminal complaints for torture against former president George W. Bush in Geneva, who was due to speak at an event there on February 12th. On the eve of the filing of the complaints, George Bush canceled his trip. Swiss law requires the presence of the alleged torturer on Swiss soil before a preliminary investigation can be opened. The complaints could not be filed after Bush canceled, as the basis for jurisdiction no longer existed.
These two complaints are part of a larger effort to ensure accountability for torturers, including former U.S. officials. So on February 7, 2011, CCR publicly released the "Preliminary Bush Torture Indictment." This document presents fundamental aspects of the case against George Bush for torture, and a preliminary legal analysis of his liability for torture and a response to some anticipated defenses. This document will be updated as developments warrant. The exhibit list contains references to more than 2,500 pages of supporting material.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bush_Torture_Indictment









*Search Results*


*Bush Torture Indictment | Center for Constitutional Rights*

ccrjustice.org › Our Cases › Current Cases



Center for Constitutional Rights



Former Guantánamo Prisoner Speaks Out On Lawsuit Seeking *Bush's Arrest* in ... *Swiss* law requires the presence of the alleged torturer on *Swiss* soil before a ... to prosecute Geore W. *Bush* and indicating they will *file* private prosecutions on ...*[PDF]INDICTMENT FOR TORTURE - Center for Constitutional ...*

ccrjustice.org/*files*/FINAL%207%20Feb...



Center for Constitutional Rights



Feb 7, 2011 - for establishing *BUSH's* presence in *Switzerland* and the inclusion .... http://www. aclu.org/*files*/pdfs/natsec/20070105_Dorn_Declaration_8.pdf ...*George W. Bush cancels Switzerland visit over fears of ...*

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../George-W-*Bush*-cancels-*Switzerland*-...



Daily Mail



Feb 6, 2011 - Mr *Bush* was due to be the keynote speaker at a Jewish charity gala in ... But pressure has been building on the *Swiss* government to *arrest* him and open a ...... *FILE* - This Oct. 9, 2013 *file* photo shows U.S actor Tom Hanks at ...You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 9/12/14
*The Indictment for Torture Filed Against George W. Bush ...*

www.andyworthington.co.uk/.../the-*indictment*-for-torture-*file*d-against-...





Feb 19, 2011 - The *Indictment* for Torture Filed Against George W. *Bush* (Part One: The Facts) ... *Swiss* law requires the presence of an alleged torturer on *Swiss* soil before a ..... Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo *Files*: The ...*Bush Torture Indictment - WikiSpooks*

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/*Bush*_Torture_*Indictment*





Feb 7, 2011 - Caused by, *Bush* Torture *Indictment*/Perpetrators ... be used for individual victims to *file* cases against George *Bush* in any ... the case in *Switzerland*, and had support from the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).*Rights groups file Canadian indictment against Bush ... - Jurist*

jurist.org/.../rights-groups-*file*-canadian-*indictment*-against-*bush*-...



JURIST



Sep 30, 2011 - Rights groups *file* Canadian *indictment* against *Bush* for torture ... this year [ JURIST report] in Geneva, *Switzerland*, forcing *Bush* to cancel a ...

----------


## nonsqtr

> I read your whole post but chose to go back and stop you there:
> Who decides what a "Power Grab" is?
> 
> The ACLU?
> The Teaparty?
> A national referendum?
> 
> See the problem here?


Oh yeah, Devil. I see the problem here. It seems you can't read English, is the problem. See, when it says in the Constitution "Congress shall make no law", and then they do it anyway, and the President signs it, and the Supreme Court blesses it, I call that a power grab.

Any fifth grader with a civics class under her belt would call it a power grab too.

It's only the Orwellian FedGov bootlickers who are trying to tell me otherwise.

Reality is generally pretty simple, Devil - it's usually pretty easy to understand.

----------

freyasman (11-08-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Who has filed charges against him?  What court of law has done so?


Good point.

I believe this issue went to the Supreme Court and, well. . .they've spoken.

So I don't know what  @Devil505 is complaining about.  Is he aware that the Supreme Court's decisions are final?  Does he know that the SC interprets laws?

----------


## Devil505

> Oh yeah, Devil. I see the problem here. It seems you can't read English, is the problem. See, when it says in the Constitution "Congress shall make no law", and then they do it anyway, and the President signs it, and the Supreme Court blesses it, I call that a power grab.
> 
> Any fifth grader with a civics class under her belt would call it a power grab too.
> 
> It's only the Orwellian FedGov bootlickers who are trying to tell me otherwise.
> 
> Reality is generally pretty simple, Devil - it's usually pretty easy to understand.


*Amendment I*

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._

So it was a power grab for Congress to make advocating sedition illegal?
Advocating that someone should kill the President should be legal?
No law against human sacrifice as part of a religious cult ceremony?
OK for a newspaper to print classified military plans?
etc

----------


## Devil505

> Good point.
> 
> I believe this issue went to the Supreme Court and, well. . .they've spoken.


Link please?

----------


## Victory

> Link please?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3415124.html

Walk it back please?

You're the one who is hanging your hat on Supreme Court decisions, not me.

----------


## Devil505

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3415124.html
> 
> Walk it back please?
> 
> You're the one who is hanging your hat on Supreme Court decisions, not me.


The case is totally irrelevant.
1. That was about Rumsfeld.
2. The issue of Bush or Cheney specifically authorizing torture was never an issue.

----------


## Victory

> The case is totally irrelevant.
> 1. That was about Rumsfeld.
> 2. The issue of Bush or Cheney specifically authorizing torture was never an issue.


Bullshit.  If it stops before Rumsfeld it stops before Bush.

But you knew that already.

----------


## Devil505

> Bullshit.  If it stops before Rumsfeld it stops before Bush.
> 
> But you knew that already.


Bunch of crap.
Show me the SC wording that allows commanders to authorize torturing prisoners.

Your argument is absurd....and unAmerican!

----------


## Victory

> Bunch of crap.
> Show me the SC wording that allows commanders to authorize torturing prisoners.
> 
> Your argument is absurd!


You're not talking about commanders.  You're talking specifically about Bush.




> Torturing prisoners of war is an internationally accepted war crime and was when _Bush_ authorized torture as a national policy.


So talk about Bush.

Give it up.  We both know this ends for you in a dead end.

----------


## Devil505

> You're not talking about commanders.  You're talking specifically about Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> So talk about Bush.


Of course we're talking about Bush.
Bush was the CinC who authorized torturing prisoners as a matter of U.S. national policy.

----------


## Victory

> Of course we're talking about Bush.
> Bush was the CinC who authorized torturing prisoners as a matter of U.S. national policy.


Read the edit.  It's a dead end for you.

The Supreme Court has spoken.

----------


## Graham Garner

"It is a rare fortune of these days that a man may think what he likes and say what he thinks."
 - Publius Cornelius Tacitus, _Historiae_, I.1 (A.D. 105)
.  .  .

  The right to think what you wish is an attribute of freedom of speech, which is a direct grant under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Absent that freedom, to be a free thinker can be a dangerous occupation.  There have been times in the history of the world when people were persecuted, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and put to death for nothing more than their thoughts and beliefs. Free thinking is rarely welcome: it challenges the authority of the conventional wisdom and threatens the security of the status quo. (After being imprisoned twice, Voltaire fled Paris to live near the Swiss border to avoid being arrested for his "free thinking".)  Indeed, history records that more than a few such free thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Cicero, Christ) were executed.

----------


## Victory

> "It is a rare fortune of these days that a man may think what he likes and say what he thinks."
>  - Publius Cornelius Tacitus, _Historiae_, I.1 (A.D. 105)
> .  .  .
> 
>   The right to think what you wish is an attribute of freedom of speech, which is a direct grant under the First Amendment to the Constitution.


No it's not.  You really don't have any idea how or why this country was founded.

----------


## nonsqtr

> *Amendment I*
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> So it was a power grab for Congress to make advocating sedition illegal?




Absolutely, Devil. What part of "Congress shall make *no* law" don't you understand?




> Advocating that someone should kill the President should be legal?


Congress shall make no law, Devil. Are you aware of the history on this one? Assassinating the President wasn't even a federal crime until after Kennedy. FedGov did a little power grab, you see - and stole jurisdiction of the Kennedy assassination away from the State of Texas where it belonged. You can read all about it in the history books. Waggoner Carr was the AG in Texas at the time, you can look him up and see what he had to say about the Kennedy assassination. It's what I've been telling you, Devil. The whole entire system has become corrupt because of the legacy of people like the paranoid gay cross dressing Director of the FBI for Life, J Edgar Hoover. 




> No law against human sacrifice as part of a religious cult ceremony?


Human sacrifice is murder. That's generally a State crime, not a federal crime. 'Xcept of course if it's the President or if it actually happens in Washington DC which is federal territory.




> OK for a newspaper to print classified military plans?
> etc


If the classified military plans are un-Constitutional then *hell yes* I encourage it! WTF did you think Devil, our government is incapable of being complete fucking assholes just like you 'n' me and the next guy? This government is more than capable of violating its own laws, history is very clear on that point.

This is why, Devil, *we simply do not give our government that power.*

And to the extent that they "take" it, then yes, it's a power grab and it's entirely un-Constitutional.

Do you have respect for the highest law in the land or don't you?

It's codified law Devil, it's written down. You'd have to actually pervert the English language to misunderstand it.

----------

freyasman (11-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Of course we're talking about Bush.
> Bush was the CinC who authorized torturing prisoners as a matter of U.S. national policy.


Waterboarding was only torture in the fetid dim minds of Leftist tools; and in the hyperbole of their agitators and propagandists.

----------

Sled Dog (11-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Waterboarding was only torture in the fetid dim minds of Leftist tools; and in the hyperbole of their agitators and propagandists.


So you wouldn't mind being waterboarded at a police station as part of an interrogation, right?  Any of your loved ones?

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014),freyasman (11-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Of course we're talking about Bush.
> Bush was the CinC who authorized torturing prisoners as a matter of U.S. national policy.


Your "It's all Bush's fault!" meme is six years past it's expiration date.

----------


## nonsqtr

> "It is a rare fortune of these days that a man may think what he likes and say what he thinks."
>  - Publius Cornelius Tacitus, _Historiae_, I.1 (A.D. 105)
> .  .  .
> 
>   The right to think what you wish is an attribute of freedom of speech, which is a direct grant under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Absent that freedom, to be a free thinker can be a dangerous occupation.  There have been times in the history of the world when people were persecuted, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and put to death for nothing more than their thoughts and beliefs. Free thinking is rarely welcome: it challenges the authority of the conventional wisdom and threatens the security of the status quo. (After being imprisoned twice, Voltaire fled Paris to live near the Swiss border to avoid being arrested for his "free thinking".)  Indeed, history records that more than a few such free thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Cicero, Christ) were executed.


Yes Graham. We know all about Giordano Bruno. Burned at the stake by the "authorities" for telling the truth.

So now a little bit of education and a desire to adhere to our Constitution qualifies as "free thinking"? In whose universe, Graham? The Orwellian halls of the deluded utopian liberals who think they can change human nature through legislation?

Once again Mr. Lying Lawyer, *the First Amendment "grants" nothing!*

Can you even read English? Read the damn thing and tell me what it says. Where is the word "grant"? Where is even a mere hint of a suggestion that the government is "giving" us anything? Hmmm?

It says: "*Congress shall make no law.*" That's exactly what it says. That is a prohibition on our Federal Government, nothing more nothing less. And if FedGov would keep its cotton picking hands OFF my rights and just do what the fuck they're told and what we pay them to do, then there wouldn't be a problem because there would never be any infringements on our freedom to speak.

Please don't bullshit us anymore Graham. Please don't even try to blow that kind of smoke up our butts. We the People are educated too - apparently way better than you are Mr. Deluded Lawyer. The First Amendment grants nothing, it is specifically a prohibition on the Federal Government from interfering with our right to speak.

And here you are with your bullshit not-so-veiled threats again. This time it's a death threat. Screw that Graham, no one here is intimidated by your government bootlicking. And I'm very sorry you live in such fear of your government.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Your "It's all Bush's fault!" meme is six years past it's expiration date.


Now it's Obama's fault.

(Not that it matters)...

What's your point?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So you wouldn't mind being waterboarded at a police station as part of an interrogation, right?  Any of your loved ones?


I wouldn't like it.

And it's not part of a police investigation.

We're not talking about police.  We are talking about WAR.

And if waterboarding were the worst that our enemies did to captured soldiers...I'd have no fear.

You're a Marine, right?  You were probably given worse treatment at Parris Island during basic training.

----------

Sled Dog (11-06-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Waterboarding was only torture in the fetid dim minds of Leftist tools; and in the hyperbole of their agitators and propagandists.


No, it's actually internationally recognized as an instrument of torture.

Not once, JPT. *Three hundred times.* That's torture. There's no question about it.

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014),freyasman (11-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No, it's actually internationally recognized as an instrument of torture.
> 
> Not once, JPT. *Three hundred times.* That's torture. There's no question about it.


What the Hate-America Caucus of the Striped-Pants Brigade SAYS is torture is not necessarily torture.

UN goons raping little girls...is torture.

UN "peacekeepers" looting homes, is terrorism.

WATERBOARDING is apparently only torture when the Great Satan does it.  MUCH more egregious conduct by other armies is IGNORED by these pompous socialist assholes.

----------


## nonsqtr

> We're not talking about police.  We are talking about WAR.


Oh, so you admit it's war? Well then, it's a *war* crime. Case closed.




> And if waterboarding were the worst that our enemies did to captured soldiers...I'd have no fear.


It's not about our enemies. If you're saying we have to use waterboarding to win, then I'm going to tell you that the only reason we needed waterboarding in the first place is 'cause our intelligence was so piss-poor. If our 58-billion-dollar-a-year CIA were actually doing its job instead of starting wars all over the place, we would have known who these people were before it even happened. Come to think of it, we did - and BushCo ignored it. Fucking scumbag neo-cons, I hope they all rot in hell. In fact I hope Dick Cheney has a special seat right next to the devil - about waist high.




> You're a Marine, right?  You were probably given worse treatment at Parris Island during basic training.


You're making excuses. Fine, knock yourself out. No one's gonna vote for that shit though. This is exactly why McCain lost the election, 'cause of stuff like this. The American People refuse to institutionalize torture as an instrument of our foreign policy. That may be okay for some scumbags out there, but it's not okay for us. And if our intel is doing its job we don't need to stoop to crimes against humanity, we should lead by example and instead those fucked up paranoid neo-cons thought they could lead by force and intimidation. That kinda crap is not gonna work, the American People won't tolerate stuff like that. I mean Jeez, let's be real - if you're gonna torture someone then don't be really stupid and start blabbing about it, that's just abject stupidity and that's exactly what George W Bush was, abjectly stupid.

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> WATERBOARDING is apparently only torture when the Great Satan does it.  MUCH more egregious conduct by other armies is IGNORED by these pompous socialist assholes.


Goddamit, it's not about "socialist assholes". It's about the person representing *==> me <==* as President of the United States.

----------


## teeceetx

> What percent of some 330 million people hunt,,, or even want to hunt. You must live in the stone age. Owning a firearm probably makes some folks feel big or more secure, but all to often accidents in the home deflate that bubble.  If I lived in a high crime area I would move on rather than  thinking I could shoot my way out of it.
> 
> I grew up on a farm, or I should say in a farm town, and had everyday access to a .22 rifle and a shotgun.  So hunting and shooting for sport is old hat for me. I had one accident with a BB gun and shot a friend in the arm. That was close enough for me. It did not break the skin but it hurt like hell, so he said. It could have been his eye.


Lest you forget what the 2nd Amendment is for.  It's not for hunting or personal protection (although they are valid points).  It is so the citizens can overthrow the government when the government turned tyrannical.  No one ever thought that the government would prevent citizens from protecting themselves from predatory criminals, but this gets covered anyway.  But the government is immensely worried about an armed population, which is why they spend every waking moment thinking of ways to disarm the law abiding citizens.

Clearly you have made a wise choice in staying away from firearms.  But that does not give you the right to decide the same for anyone else.

----------


## Devil505

> It is so the citizens can overthrow the government when the government turned tyrannical.


lol
It's so that a local militia can *protect the government* and people from enemies.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I wouldn't like it.
> 
> And it's not part of a police investigation.
> 
> We're not talking about police.  We are talking about WAR.
> 
> And if waterboarding were the worst that our enemies did to captured soldiers...I'd have no fear.
> 
> You're a Marine, right?  You were probably given worse treatment at Parris Island during basic training.


I was also trained in the laws of war.  Waterboarding violates those laws.  It's why all the veterans were against waterboarding and and why all the chickenhawks were for it.

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014),freyasman (11-08-2014),nonsqtr (11-05-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> lol
> It's so that a local militia can *protect the government* and people from enemies.


As long as our government is doing its job we'll do that!  :Smile: 

We love our government Devil, we created it in the first place. Believe me, if there's ever a real threat to the United States then We the People will be right there doing everything we can for our neighbors and our countrymen.

There are threats from within too, and lately they're more significant that the teeming hordes of barbarians at our doors. And We the People respond to those too, even when the powers that be are telling us they don't exist.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Goddamit, it's not about "socialist assholes". It's about the person representing *==> me <==* as President of the United States.


War is HELL.

In war, you put HOLES in people, where people were not intended to have holes.

You travel to exotic lands; meet interesting new people; and kill them dead and blow up their cities.

The "socialist assholes" are leaders of those Peoples' Democratic Republics where the peons eat mud while they bedeck their pets in gold.  THEY are quick to pile on any attack, no matter the facts, on the United States.

Captured TERRORIST soldiers do not, repeat NOT have Geneva protections!  The Geneva Protocols are in the form of treaties; and to be afforded that protection, an army's host nation must sign.

These are stateless combatants.

Moreover, the Geneva protocols EXPLICITLY do not cover STATELESS TERRORISTS or soldiers not wearing identifiable insignia and identifying with a government.  The whole POINT of the Geneva protocols were to ENCOURAGE enemy solders to fight under basic rules, and offer protections WHEN THEY COMPLY.

Terrorists with shadowy groups don't qualify there, TWICE.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Oh, so you admit it's war? Well then, it's a *war* crime. Case closed.


It is not a war crime.

Fighting without an identifiable insignia as to nation-state and government....THAT is a war crime.  See my post above.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I was also trained in the laws of war.  Waterboarding violates those laws.  It's why all the veterans were against waterboarding and and why all the chickenhawks were for it.


Could you please cite where it violates "laws of war."

I'm a veteran.  I know other veterans.  I only know one or two who were even slightly bothered.  Three, including yourself.

You obviously hadn't noticed how incredibly popular was "war-criminal" Bush with the veterans and soldiers.  Maybe not with the leaders of veteran's supposed GROUPS...like labor unions, many of them are suspect in their leadership.  But the cheering and applause and statements of respect, continued right up to his departure.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Could you please cite where it violates "laws of war."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
*(*_d)__Common Article 3 Violations.—(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons._

----------


## sotmfs

> What the Hate-America Caucus of the Striped-Pants Brigade SAYS is torture is not necessarily torture.
> 
> UN goons raping little girls...is torture.
> 
> UN "peacekeepers" looting homes, is terrorism.
> 
> WATERBOARDING is apparently only torture when the Great Satan does it.  MUCH more egregious conduct by other armies is IGNORED by these pompous socialist assholes.


Great Satan?Who is the Great Satan?

Pompous socialist assholes?Who are the Pompous socialist assholes?
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...g%20by%20japan

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccain-j...waterboarding/

*McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding*

----------


## sotmfs

> I was also trained in the laws of war.  Waterboarding violates those laws.  It's why all the veterans were against waterboarding and and why all the chickenhawks were for it.


Are you a pompous socialist asshole?

----------


## nonsqtr

> War is HELL.
> 
> In war, you put HOLES in people, where people were not intended to have holes.
> 
> You travel to exotic lands; meet interesting new people; and kill them dead and blow up their cities.
> 
> The "socialist assholes" are leaders of those Peoples' Democratic Republics where the peons eat mud while they bedeck their pets in gold.  THEY are quick to pile on any attack, no matter the facts, on the United States.
> 
> Captured TERRORIST soldiers do not, repeat NOT have Geneva protections!  The Geneva Protocols are in the form of treaties; and to be afforded that protection, an army's host nation must sign.
> ...


Still making excuses on the technicalities?

JPT: *lead by example.*

Any Hahvahd lawyer can find an excuse for something. We don't need excuses, we actually need to take care of our own.

----------


## sotmfs

> Who has filed charges against him?  What court of law has done so?


*McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding*http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccain-j...waterboarding/

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Still making excuses on the technicalities?
> 
> JPT: *lead by example.*
> 
> Any Hahvahd lawyer can find an excuse for something. We don't need excuses, we actually need to take care of our own.


No, those are not technicalities.

The Geneva protocols were to reward regular soldiers fighting under their flag and PUNISH spies, guerillas and sabateurs.  Like non-governmental terrorists ARE.

Most nations put to DEATH as SPIES, soldiers fighting against them who show no flag.  They have no nation-state claiming them; they are executed.

We only dunked them in water.

Again...the Geneva Protocols are an agreement BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.  Al-qaeda is not a nation-state and it did not sign.  Certainly it does not abide by them

----------


## JustPassinThru

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
> *(*_d)__Common Article 3 Violations.—(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
> 
> (A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
> 
> (B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
> 
> (C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
> 
> ...


Points A and B are subjective - whats is "torture?"  Obviously something that doesn't cause excruciating pain; doesn't cause bleeding or broken bones; doesn't maim in any way, shape, manner or form, and doesn't deny water or nutrition...is not torture.

You make me listen to rap music, loud rap...I'm gonna be annoyed.  But it's more tortuous than getting dunked.

The only truly harsh part of it was the fear of the prisoner that he WOULD be drowned.  And that fear was being used to a purpose; to gain information.

It works much better than giving them a soft bed, pristine Koran and three _halal_ meals a day.

----------


## sotmfs

> Points A and B are subjective - whats is "torture?"  Obviously something that doesn't cause excruciating pain; doesn't cause bleeding or broken bones; doesn't maim in any way, shape, manner or form, and doesn't deny water or nutrition...is not torture.
> 
> You make me listen to rap music, loud rap...I'm gonna be annoyed.  But it's more tortuous than getting dunked.
> 
> The only truly harsh part of it was the fear of the prisoner that he WOULD be drowned.  And that fear was being used to a purpose; to gain information.
> 
> It works much better than giving them a soft bed, pristine Koran and three _halal_ meals a day.


You are entitled to your opinion.Many Americans died fighting the Japanese so we who live in America can express our opinions.As a matter of fact some were tortured by the Japanese .We won the war and some of the Japanese that used waterboarding to torture American prisoners were hanged.

----------

Devil505 (11-05-2014)

----------


## Network

Pearl Harbor was celebrated on high mountaintops in America.

----------


## sotmfs

> Pearl Harbor was celebrated on high mountaintops in America.


How was/is that?

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, those are not technicalities.
> 
> The Geneva protocols were to reward regular soldiers fighting under their flag and PUNISH spies, guerillas and sabateurs.  Like non-governmental terrorists ARE.
> 
> Most nations put to DEATH as SPIES, soldiers fighting against them who show no flag.  They have no nation-state claiming them; they are executed.
> 
> We only dunked them in water.
> 
> Again...the Geneva Protocols are an agreement BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.  Al-qaeda is not a nation-state and it did not sign.  Certainly it does not abide by them


You're trying to convince me that we stayed within the letter of the law, therefore we're okay.

And I'm still going to say: *lead by example.*

This is one of those things like in accounting, if you're an accountant you want to avoid not only "actual" impropriety, you want to avoid even the perception of impropriety. Otherwise no one's going to do business with you anymore - even a "little" doubt is enough to make a guy walk across the street to someone he thinks he can trust.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Pearl Harbor was celebrated on high mountaintops in America.


Of course it was. 

So was 9/11.

----------


## Network

> How was/is that?


32nd president 32ndegree FDR knew it was coming and 33rd president, 33rd degree Truman ended it with the 33 laced atom bomb.


See that apron over his manhood?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You're trying to convince me that we stayed within the letter of the law, therefore we're okay.
> 
> And I'm still going to say: *lead by example.*


You don't win wars by turning the other cheek.

In this case we're dealing with subhuman qat-chewing 7th-Century throwbacks queer for Allah.  They don't HAVE suburban American values.

You win wars by BREAKING THE ENEMY'S WILL TO FIGHT.

In this case, you have to scare the mullahs; that their own comfort will be at risk.  Their soldiers are pawns; they could care less about them.  Life is cheap and their pawns are programmed to look forward to death.

In this case, the prisoners had information that would be useful.  TORTURE does not bring out information - it brings out lies, babbling.  FEAR of torture DOES bring out information.

Dunking them in a tank, and them not KNOWING the limitation of their interrogators...that would tend to make them talk.  Some.

Done to many of them, intelligence officers can glean the truth.  AND AMERICAN LIVES SAVED.

Is that not something that should be sought?

----------


## Network

The power to confiscate the wealth of millions of people empowers psychopaths, no doubt.


Truman, the 33rd President, ordered the dropping of the bombThe 32nd President died months earlier on the 33rd Parallel North_Trinity Test_ July 16, 1945 = 7+1+6+1+9+4+5 = *33*_Hiroshima_ August 6, 1945 = 8+6+1+9+4+5 = *33*

----------


## Network

> The power to confiscate the wealth of millions of people empowers psychopaths, no doubt.
> 
> 
> Truman, the 33rd President, ordered the dropping of the bombThe 32nd President died months earlier on the 33rd Parallel North_Trinity Test_ July 16, 1945 = 7+1+6+1+9+4+5 = *33*_Hiroshima_ August 6, 1945 = 8+6+1+9+4+5 = *33*


Pile up your coincidences and deny your love for numbers, Mason Cultists.

----------


## Devil505

> In this case, the prisoners had information that would be useful.  TORTURE does not bring out information - it brings out lies, babbling.  FEAR of torture DOES bring out information.
> 
> Dunking them in a tank, and them not KNOWING the limitation of their interrogators...that would tend to make them talk.  Some.
> 
> Done to many of them, intelligence officers can glean the truth.  AND AMERICAN LIVES SAVED.


I have interrogated hundreds of uncooperative hardoned-criminal prisoners in my career and never had to torture a single one.
Being smarter than them and using psychology is a much more effective tactic than torture.(plus it has the advantage of being legal and allowing one to live with themselves later)

So that we may judge the amount of weight to give your opinions......how many prisoners have you interrogated in your lifetime?

----------


## nonsqtr

> You don't win wars by turning the other cheek.
> 
> In this case we're dealing with subhuman qat-chewing 7th-Century throwbacks queer for Allah.  They don't HAVE suburban American values.


At the time of 9/11 the total number of terrorists and potential terrorists was less than 50,000 worldwide - according to our CIA's own estimates.

It wasn't "all of Islam", it wasn't even an "entire country", it wasn't even a province within a country. The number of actual terrorists was so small you could have fit 'em all into the town of Bumfuck Iowa with plenty of room to spare.




> You win wars by BREAKING THE ENEMY'S WILL TO FIGHT.


Right. Is that what you're seeing? Broken will?

You can't break this enemy's will with torture, that's not going to work.




> In this case, you have to scare the mullahs; that their own comfort will be at risk.  Their soldiers are pawns; they could care less about them.  Life is cheap and their pawns are programmed to look forward to death.


We're not fighting the Mullahs! If you're going to torture someone you better know who you're fighting first.




> In this case, the prisoners had information that would be useful.  TORTURE does not bring out information - it brings out lies, babbling.  FEAR of torture DOES bring out information.
> 
> Dunking them in a tank, and them not KNOWING the limitation of their interrogators...that would tend to make them talk.  Some.
> 
> Done to many of them, intelligence officers can glean the truth.  AND AMERICAN LIVES SAVED.
> 
> Is that not something that should be sought?


What should be sought is *adequate intelligence*. We pay our scumbag CIA *58 billion dollars a year* and they *failed.* 'Kay?

Now they're going to commit crimes against humanity to cover up their miserable fucking failures, and *you* are playing right along with it, trying to cover their sorry asses with age-old and long-failed excuses.

The Cold War is over. Now the biggest enemy is inside, in the form of people like the Neo-Cons, who are *liberal war hawks*, they're not even anywhere close to being "conservative" in any way shape or form.

We don't need torture. We need good intelligence, and we need a C-in-C with a brain. And most of all we need to get the rats out of our nest, most of the Neo-Cons are gone now and all that's left is these idiot Progressives, so why don't we put our heads together and focus on that, and if you're gonna go torture someone just don't tell me about it, 'kay?  :Wink:

----------


## Network

> I have interrogated hundreds of uncooperative hardoned-criminal prisoners in my career and never had to torture a single one.
> Being smarter than them and using psychology is a much more effective tactic than torture.(plus it has the advantage of being legal and allowing one to live with themselves later)
> 
> So that we may judge the amount of weight to give your opinions......how many prisoners have you interrogated in your lifetime?


Did they ever ask you why you have a devil stirring the pot avatar and why your username is Devil505?

Nope, seems you only dealt with dumbasses.

Because they must be really stupid to fail to outsmart a fraud like you.

----------


## Devil505

> Did they ever ask you why you have a devil stirring the pot avatar and why your username is Devil505?


LOL....since you asked:
Devil505 is the call sign of the aviator/hero in this book..... 


......and the avatar was made for me by Mordent.

----------

nonsqtr (11-05-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> LOL....since you asked:
> 
> ......and the avatar was made for me by Mordent.


And I do remember asking you about that at one point, yes I do.  :Smile:

----------


## Sled Dog

> The clever bastards have tried to pull a fast one on us though, they've tried to separate the issue of ownership from the issue of control. It's almost as if the liberals were trying to convince us we don't really "own" ourselves, we merely "rent".


Rousseau in "The Social Contract" argued that the citizen owes his parents and his king for the fact of being alive, that "society" expended resources raising him and thus the King could take his body and use it for whatever he needed.

Which is bullshit.  The parents OWE the child what that child needs to survive and thrive.  Society owes the child nothing, nor does the child owe society.   

But the Rodents beleived in Rousseau before they heard of Alinsky.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No...they are *opinions*.
> 
> *"I like strawberry ice cream better than chocolate."*.......is that opinion improper or abuse?
> The fact is that SC *opinions* are enforceable in law.
> 
> Our Constitution gives us legal remedies and those remedies are almost always elections.
> We all have a say in who becomes a SC justice when we elect the Presidents that choose them and when we elect the Senators that confirm them.
> 
> Is our SCOTUS/Judicial Review procedure foolproof or always moral?.....Of course not. Dred Scott proves that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
> ...



Christ boy, how many times do we have to tell you that the States and the Congress should have the Constitutional authority to CHECK the Supreme Court?

Ain't going to try to explain it to you again.  That cesspool is already full of piss.

----------


## Sled Dog

> We have free and fair elections...the colonists didn't.


No.  WE have ACORN and Dick Holders claiming Voter ID is "racist" and early voting and 35,000 people voting in North Carolina and some other state and Al Franken and Linda Sanchez and illegal alien voting.

Given all the cheating you people do, just imagine how the situtation yesterday would have been if the elections had been honest.




> Many on the Left and middle feel that Bush authorizing torture deviated from the Constitution.


Water boarding isn't torture, except to terrorists and Democrats who don't know what a bath is for.




> What's *your* moral compass that let's you wink at a President who commits war crimes? (I'd like an answer to that please)


LBJ was an awful long time ago...and he was one of yours.  

YOU are the ones that winked at the Rapist President's pointless arial bombardment of Serbia.  YOU are the one that defended King Ebola's illegal war in Libya.  

What's your point?  That we didn't impeach King Ebola for his innumerable acts of treason?

----------


## Roadmaster

Supreme court is only suppose to come in if a state cannot agree on something or things like murder cases. They are not suppose to rule on state matters over the states and the people.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Torturing prisoners of war is an internationally accepted war crime and was when Bush authorized torture as a national policy.


But they were not "Prisoners of War".  POW's are a clearly defined class of combatant captured persons...and King Ebola's terrorist friends do not fit into that category.  Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply, and would not sanction anyone for washing some faces, anyway.

If they like, we could send all the non-POWs to Switzerland if they want to be useful.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Rousseau in "The Social Contract" argued that the citizen owes his parents and his king for the fact of being alive, that "society" expended resources raising him and thus the King could take his body and use it for whatever he needed.
> 
> Which is bullshit.  The parents OWE the child what that child needs to survive and thrive.  Society owes the child nothing, nor does the child owe society.   
> 
> But the Rodents beleived in Rousseau before they heard of Alinsky.


Well, Rousseau was a Frenchman, need I say more?

----------


## Sled Dog

> So you wouldn't mind being waterboarded at a police station as part of an interrogation, right? Any of your loved ones?


So you can't see the difference between picking up a TERRORIST in Trashcanistan and a pickpocket in Manhattan.

ONE is covered by the Constitution, the other is some that should have been shot by the troops but since he wasn't he should be peeled for whatever information he has to make the fight against his illegal terrorist organization more efficient.

Being an American, I want MY children protected from the terrorist trash that King Ebola defends.   After all, YOU people cheered the loudest when King Ebola was riding Obama sin Laden's corpse to re-election, a corpse made meat by information recovered ONLY by the gentle persuasion of water-boarding.

But hey, since they're terrorists and not US citizens, I'm all for beheading them with a hedge trimmer after we've waterboarded all the information out of them, and dropping their bodies into the nearest pig farm from the back of a truck.  Cry me a fucking river, but those THINGS are not human beings and should not be accorded the protections Americans enjoy.   Especially when they're not even caught in the US.

Think o....er...for you, try to have feelings about those things as if they were walkers, but smellier.

----------


## nonsqtr

> But they were not "Prisoners of War".  POW's are a clearly defined class of combatant captured persons...and King Ebola's terrorist friends do not fit into that category.  Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply, and would not sanction anyone for washing some faces, anyway.
> 
> If they like, we could send all the non-POWs to Switzerland if they want to be useful.


More technicalities. Look man, it's bad enough our CIA gets its black ops money from drug dealing, but if you're talking about outright torture you're crossing a very serious line, that's very serious indeed. I don't want my president using torture as an instrument of national policy, I just don't want that and I won't vote for any such thing, and I'll vote out anyone who tries it. I simply don't want to be represented that way. If we have to use torture we've lost before we even apply the first electric shock. It's an idiotic and hysterical response to some other problem. If it's a lack of information, then we should get the information, but earlier I pointed out we already pay our CIA *58 billion dollars a year* in legitimate money to get that information for us, and if they're failing in that job it's not any Islamist terrorist's fault. If the scumbag is guilty then put him on trial and execute him, but don't torture the fucker, that's just idiotic and it sends the worst kind of message to the rest of the world, about who we are and how we do business.

----------


## JustPassinThru

I should let this go.  But these things need to be answer.




> At the time of 9/11 the total number of terrorists and potential terrorists was less than 50,000 worldwide - according to our CIA's own estimates.
> 
> It wasn't "all of Islam", it wasn't even an "entire country", it wasn't even a province within a country. The number of actual terrorists was so small you could have fit 'em all into the town of Bumfuck Iowa with plenty of room to spare.


And quite possibly their information was bad.

You sure had a lot of Soldiers of Allah pop up for the 73 virgins, over in Iraq...no?  And most of them weren't even Iraqi.  They came from someplace else...to secure Iraq for al-Qaeda once Saddam was done.






> Right. Is that what you're seeing? Broken will?


Nope.  The Left is giving the enemy Aid and Comfort by showing them that our OWN will is weak, and if they just hang on they will persevere.

Six years after Iraq was marginally pacified, the Moron in Chief telegraphed an unconditional withdrawl.  And all they had to do was hunker down.




> You can't break this enemy's will with torture, that's not going to work.


You can, and interrogators did, get valuable and useful information.  The individual prisoners' resistance was broken or lowered.






> We're not fighting the Mullahs!


Yes we ARE.  By proxy, in their case.  Who the fuck do you think CONTROLS those regions?

The mullahs and oil sheikhs finance the war and the mullahs order the Faithful to die for the Great Satan.  This is not a sophisticated culture as we have; there IS nothing but the mosque, the mullahs, your ugly wife in black burlap and the occasional goat for relief.  Not even booze!  So these goatherders wander around in a zombie-like existence having nothing...and then the Mullah orders them to die and go to Paradise and have 73 VIRGINS!  Holy sheepshit, where do I sign UP?




> If you're going to torture someone you better know who you're fighting first.


I know.  Better than you.

I even know WHY the mullahs fight.  They hate and fear the West; because Western values and wealth and lifestyles, challenge and remove their political power and authority.

That ought to be self-evident.  Apparently not to some.






> What should be sought is *adequate intelligence*. We pay our scumbag CIA *58 billion dollars a year* and they *failed.* 'Kay?


You know what they say about the sausage factory?  We all like the taste of what comes out of it; but maybe we shouldn't look too closely at how it works.

Likewise the CIA.  Which with all the restrictions on actual agents, they have to depend on foreign allies and spies.

IN ANY EVENT, only a damn-fool military officer is going to NOT avail himself of all information a captured enemy soldier has!  This isn't a game - it's WAR!




> Now they're going to commit crimes against humanity to cover up their miserable fucking failures, and *you* are playing right along with it, trying to cover their sorry asses with age-old and long-failed excuses.


Save me the San Francisco paranoia and big feelings.




> The Cold War is over. Now the biggest enemy is inside, in the form of people like the Neo-Cons, who are *liberal war hawks*, they're not even anywhere close to being "conservative" in any way shape or form.


Yah, and Bush and Rove blew up the WTC.  

And you act like there are people who LIKE war.  NO.  War is risky; war is lethal for many participants.  But war is NECESSARY; because there's always bad actors out there and they don't go away if you ignore them.  They push harder; to see if their opponents are soft enough to run over.

Naive peaceniks thing they can sing away the bad guys with folk music.  That their enemies are here.  No.  And you'll probably learn it, since Our God The Kenyan has so stripped the military they couldn't control crowds at a Florida Bingo hall.




> We don't need torture. We need good intelligence, and we need a C-in-C with a brain. And most of all we need to get the rats out of our nest, most of the Neo-Cons are gone now and all that's left is these idiot Progressives, so why don't we put our heads together and focus on that, and if you're gonna go torture someone just don't tell me about it, 'kay?


So you think you're qualified to judge the CIA and their intelligence-gathering efficiency?  I don't think you're qualified to sweep FLOORS there.  You know NOTHING yet you sit in high dudgeon, huffing about how someone ELSE needs to do his job better.

A job you wouldn't have a clue how to do.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, it's actually internationally recognized as an instrument of torture.
> 
> Not once, JPT. *Three hundred times.* That's torture. There's no question about it.



No it's not.

Just because a bunch of flaming international libturds who want America to LOSE and who want Americans HURT say it is, doesn't mean squat.  

We all know what they would say is it was their nation under attack and they were taking simple harmless measures to secure vital intelligence on the enemy.


YOu people are just going to have to get used to the fact that those things are not common criminals and they are not "POWs".   They are international terrorists with no proclaimed supporting national government, and as such are OUTLAWS.   And to OUTLAWS people have always been allowed to do what they will.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> More technicalities.


No.

Mere realities.




> Look man, it's bad enough our CIA gets its black ops money from drug dealing,


You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound 
but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!




> but if you're talking about outright torture you're crossing a very serious line, that's very serious indeed.


Oh.

So now waterboarding isn't "outright torture" according to you?

Here's a clue:  terrorists exist for the SOLE purpose of being hunted and killed.   If one is captured, the ONLY reason to capture it is to extract information from it to enable the hunting and KILLING of more terrorists.  Otherwise it should have been shot where found.

Why coddle them, and why play pretend?  




> I don't want my president using torture as an instrument of national policy,


As far as I can recall, you never voted for Bush, so he wasn't YOUR president, he was THEIR president.

Yeah, a mere "reality", but that's the way things work.

Since no one was harmed by waterboarding, not once ins THREEOHMYGODHUNDREDHOLYSHITTIMES, it's clearly not "torture".

Since the terrorists should have been executed after being drained, "what difference does it make"?  You don't want us to keep a collection of live terrorists, do you?

What on earth for?   Every country that collects terrorists winds up trading them out, possibly 5:1 for a used deserter muslim that's of no use to anyone at all.




> I just don't want that and I won't vote for any such thing, and I'll vote out anyone who tries it. I simply don't want to be represented that way. If we have to use torture we've lost before we even apply the first electric shock. It's an idiotic and hysterical response to some other problem. If it's a lack of information, then we should get the information, but earlier I pointed out we already pay our CIA *58 billion dollars a year* in legitimate money to get that information for us, and if they're failing in that job it's not any Islamist terrorist's fault. If the scumbag is guilty then put him on trial and execute him, but don't torture the fucker, that's just idiotic and it sends the worst kind of message to the rest of the world, about who we are and how we do business.


They're "failing" in that job perhaps because they have TO BE SO NICE TO THE ENEMY that the enemy view it as a vacation.

If we treated terrorists like the Mexicans treat our marines, we'd get more results.   Maybe we should put the Deadly Pink Panties on their heads instead?

----------


## Sled Dog

> You're trying to convince me that we stayed within the letter of the law, therefore we're okay.
> .


Point to the fucking signature al-quada has on the Geneva Convention and we'll let your foolishness go.

Remember Nick Berg? What about the latest series of beheadings? And you want to WHINE about giving THEM a wet face?




> And I'm still going to say: *lead by example.*


But we are.

The example we are giving those THINGS is that no matter how terribly they hurt us, we are going to keep a stiff upper lip and treat them POLITELY.

And, naturally, that example of leadership will certainly get results.

It will get results that fit in bags with very long zippers.

Want to lead by example?

Drop a fuel-air bomb into a large mosque the next time an American is beheaded. Drop it when it's full of muslims at prayer.
Drop it without warning, drop it without ever having threatened such retaliation.

Then the next beheading, do it again. 

We have a lot of fuel air bombs.

They have a lot of mosques.

Give THEM real incentive to STOP.

THAT'S "leading by example".

----------


## Roadmaster

> So these goatherders wander around in a zombie-like existence having nothing...and then the Mullah orders them to die and go to Paradise and have 73 VIRGINS!  Holy sheepshit, where do I sign UP?


 Just because you keep repeating it won't make it the truth. No where does it say that about virgins.

----------


## nonsqtr

> So you think you're qualified to judge the CIA and their intelligence-gathering efficiency?


Yes, as a matter of fact I am. 

You are too. The CIA is under your control, via your elected representative the president. If you don't think you're qualified to judge the results of our national policy, maybe you should get hip real quick before the next election?




> I don't think you're qualified to sweep FLOORS there.  You know NOTHING yet you sit in high dudgeon, huffing about how someone ELSE needs to do his job better.


You don't know what I know, pal. And as far as my arrogance goes, I'm a voter and a citizen and I pay these fuckers to do *exactly what I tell them to do*, and no more. I don't pay 'em to take my money and do "some other thing" with it, other than exactly what I tell 'em.

I do not and will not subscribe to an out of control and unaccountable and completely irresponsible (and apparently incompetent too) national security apparatus. Yes I happen to know a lot about security in all it various forms. I also know when our elected fucking *morons* (like that asshole Clapper) are lying to our Congress under oath.




> A job you wouldn't have a clue how to do.


If I were in charge we would have gotten Bin Laden six years earlier and at a tenth of the cost. But that stupid fucker Dumbya was family friends with the clown so he skated for a few more years. WTF'samattau, you like the idea of the NSA using your tax money to wiretap you?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> ...


Think of how much would be solved, had the Left not softened children's heads that they refuse to understand the reality of the situation.

If this terrorist scum WERE just executed...like the German spies caught on Long Island.  Take 'em and pump 'em and feed them while they talk; then dig a hole, smoke a cigarette, and off to Allah's Whorehouse.

We need leaders with spine; but more than that, we need CITIZENS who don't believe we all live in Romper Room.  This is a dangerous world governed by the aggressive use of force; and sometimes ugly things have to be done that the weak and soft-headed can sleep peaceably in their beds at night.

----------


## nonsqtr

> YOu people are just going to have to get used to the fact that those things are not common criminals and they are not "POWs".   They are international terrorists with no proclaimed supporting national government, and as such are OUTLAWS.   And to OUTLAWS people have always been allowed to do what they will.


Come on dude, you're startin' to froth at the mouth. We didn't torture John Wayne Gacy, did we? How about the Son of Sam, did we torture Mr. Berkowitz? I mean, these are some of the worst mass murderers in history, surely we should have tortured them if they had, say, another body to reveal? Surely these guys are every bit as evil as y'r average Islamist?

----------

Devil505 (11-06-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Think of how much would be solved, had the Left not softened children's heads that they refuse to understand the reality of the situation.
> 
> If this terrorist scum WERE just executed...like the German spies caught on Long Island.  Take 'em and pump 'em and feed them while they talk; then dig a hole, smoke a cigarette, and off to Allah's Whorehouse.
> 
> We need leaders with spine; but more than that, we need CITIZENS who don't believe we all live in Romper Room.  This is a dangerous world governed by the aggressive use of force; and sometimes ugly things have to be done that the weak and soft-headed can sleep peaceably in their beds at night.


Sorry, I won't subscribe to that.

The highest law in our land says that any treaty we sign is equivalent to the Constitution in force. And our name is on dozens of treaties that say we won't torture people and we won't execute them without trial.

If you want to become that which you despise, that's your own business. I intend to uphold and defend our Constitution.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yes, as a matter of fact I am. 
> 
> You are too. The CIA is under your control, via your elected representative the president. If you don't think you're qualified to judge the results of our national policy, maybe you should get hip real quick before the next election?


That is the most asinine statement I ever heard.

Yes, there are elections.  Yes, elections have consequences.

First, the President was - wisely - never intended to be directly elected.  The STATES - the State governments - were to appoint Electors.

Second...there is a great difference between general policies and the day-to-day operations of the CIA.  I'm not a spy or spook; but it's obvious I understand much more of it than do you.

I wouldn't pretend to pass judgment on the Office of Management and Budget, either.  Nor even on the IRS, so long as they're not doing something grossly illegal, such as harassing taxpayers for political purposes.  But HOW they do their legitimate work...that's not under my control or yours; and frankly it's none of our business.






> You don't know what I know, pal. And as far as my arrogance goes, I'm a voter and a citizen and I pay these fuckers to do *exactly what I tell them to do*, and no more. I don't pay 'em to take my money and do "some other thing" with it, other than exactly what I tell 'em.


High dudgeon.  Stamp your foot a few times for effect, okay?

Watch them shiver on Pennsylvania Avenue.




> I do not and will not subscribe to an out of control and unaccountable and completely irresponsible (and apparently incompetent too) national security apparatus. Yes I happen to know a lot about security in all it various forms. I also know when our elected fucking *morons* (like that asshole Clapper) are lying to our Congress under oath.
> 
> 
> 
> If I were in charge we would have gotten Bin Laden six years earlier and at a tenth of the cost. But that stupid fucker Dumbya was family friends with the clown so he skated for a few more years. WTF'samattau, you like the idea of the NSA using your tax money to wiretap you?


Listen to this butt-nugget.  Now he knows how bin Laden could have been caught earlier, too.  NOT knowing a DAMN THING about that investigation...and still thinking it was police work, not war. 

But he knows.  And dammit, THEY WORK FOR HIM!   :Frustrated:

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Sorry, I won't subscribe to that.
> 
> The highest law in our land says that any treaty we sign is equivalent to the Constitution in force. And our name is on dozens of treaties that say we won't torture people and we won't execute them without trial.
> 
> If you want to become that which you despise, that's your own business. I intend to uphold and defend our Constitution.


We didn't sign treaties saying we wouldn't waterboard terrorists and spies.

In fact YOUR great liberal hero, Roosevelt, SHOT a handful of German spies.  Nope, didn't wait for an International Criminal Court to okay it.  Not even a drumhead court-martial.  Just had them taken out and SHOT.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Come on dude, you're startin' to froth at the mouth. We didn't torture John Wayne Gacy, did we? How about the Son of Sam, did we torture Mr. Berkowitz? I mean, these are some of the worst mass murderers in history, surely we should have tortured them if they had, say, another body to reveal? Surely these guys are every bit as evil as y'r average Islamist?


Do you know the difference between law enforcement and war?  (obviously not)

Do you know the difference between an American citizen dealing with American cops; and stateless terrorists in foreign lands shooting or blowing up American troops?  (again, obviously not)

Those examples are completely irrelevant.

And YES, you're one of the dainty-stomached, soft-headed ones who're our REAL liability when the nation is faced with hard choices and ugly work.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Just because you keep repeating it won't make it the truth. No where does it say that about virgins.


I weeded through that foul book from Hell once; I'm not going to do it again.

It IS the promised reward for martyrs in the Afterlife.  

There are many parts as foul or more so.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I weeded through that foul book from Hell once; I'm not going to do it again.
> 
> It IS the promised reward for martyrs in the Afterlife.  
> 
> There are many parts as foul or more so.


 No it's not. The only time it speaks of in the Hadith is about 72 wifes not virgins and it doesn't say a person that is a martyr gets them. They were talking about 80,000 servants and was not talking about them having 72 wifes. This is propaganda. In fact it says it's a sin to commit suicide but they don't consider doing what they think their god cause is suicide.

----------


## nonsqtr

> That is the most asinine statement I ever heard.
> 
> Yes, there are elections.  Yes, elections have consequences.
> 
> First, the President was - wisely - never intended to be directly elected.  The STATES - the State governments - were to appoint Electors.


Now you're lecturing me on politics? You don't know me, son. Back off.




> Second...there is a great difference between general policies and the day-to-day operations of the CIA.  I'm not a spy or spook; but it's obvious I understand much more of it than do you.


No, you don't. You're being very foolish.




> I wouldn't pretend to pass judgment on the Office of Management and Budget, either.  Nor even on the IRS, so long as they're not doing something grossly illegal, such as harassing taxpayers for political purposes.  But HOW they do their legitimate work...that's not under my control or yours; and frankly it's none of our business.


And that, sir, is the second most idiotic statement I've ever heard on this forum. (Which puts you in the elite company of a liberal - happy now?)

Of course it's our business. It's really very foolish to turn one's back on that kind of power.




> High dudgeon.  Stamp your foot a few times for effect, okay?
> 
> Watch them shiver on Pennsylvania Avenue.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to this butt-nugget.  Now he knows how bin Laden could have been caught earlier, too.  NOT knowing a DAMN THING about that investigation...and still thinking it was police work, not war. 
> 
> But he knows.  And dammit, THEY WORK FOR HIM!


You're trying to make this personal? You really are being foolish. That seems to be a common problem with a lot of righties, throwing their weight around like a bull in a china shop without having the foggiest clue what they're doing. Dumbya did the same thing, that's kinda why he got booted out of office.  :Dontknow:

----------


## nonsqtr

> No it's not. The only time it speaks of in the Hadith is about 72 wifes not virgins and it doesn't say a person that is a martyr gets them. They were talking about 80,000 servants and was not talking about them having 72 wifes. This is propaganda. In fact it says it's a sin to commit suicide but they don't consider doing what they think their god cause is suicide.


I see. JPT is our resident expert on Muslims, is that it?

----------


## Roadmaster

> I see. JPT is our resident expert on Muslims, is that it?


 In the last year, over 1000  Muslims have been having dreams and visions of Jesus and it's stirring them up.

----------


## Graham Garner

Unlike the Second Amendment, which does not grant any rights but only secures those under the law, the First Amendment to the Constitution is a direct grant of fundamental rights and civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In drafting the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these rights beyond state infringement. See _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Where else did the right to privacy come from? (There are some_ very_ conservative federal judges that think that there is no constitutional right to privacy!) You can count on it: we'd all have better rights to have a gun without being the more "well regulated" under the Second Amendment.

----------


## Victory

> Unlike the Second Amendment, which does not grant any rights but only secures those under the law, the First Amendment to the Constitution is a direct grant of fundamental rights and civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In drafting the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these rights beyond state infringement. See _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Where else did the right to privacy come from? (There are some_ very_ conservative federal judges that think that there is no constitutional right to privacy!) You can count on it: *we'd all have better rights to have a gun without being the more "well regulated" under the Second Amendment*.


Is there a nation on earth that recognizes/affords their citizens right to keep and bear arms more than the US?  Do those nations have a 2nd Amendment?

I'm thinking the answer to the first is, "no," and the answer to the second is moot.

What government, in their right minds, would have a 2nd Amendment if they're really concerned about their own survival?

----------


## Graham Garner

The point, Mr. Victory, is that your right to have a gun is subject to law.  The Second Amendment only secures the right by law.  "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). What has happened is that by making the Second Amendment to secure an individual right, we have opened the door to federal preemption, which has now made the rights of all Americans _less_ secure.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No it's not. The only time it speaks of in the Hadith is about 72 wifes not virgins and it doesn't say a person that is a martyr gets them. They were talking about 80,000 servants and was not talking about them having 72 wifes. This is propaganda. In fact it says it's a sin to commit suicide but they don't consider doing what they think their god cause is suicide.


Now we're gonna re-spin the violent, primitive, pedophilic, child-abusing, Moslems as heroic Freedom Fighters.

Tell that to Nick Berg and the others who, kinda, lost their heads.   And to the little girls who're mutilated.  And the girls who are kidnapped regularly to make into sex-slaves.

I see where you're coming from, now.  Joos are all bad and the cause of all evil; and what the Koran tells the Faithful to do, it doesn't REALLY say.  Because if we wish and dream REALLY REALLY HARD, we can make our fantasies come TRUE.
*
YES WE CAN!  YES WE CAN!*

----------


## Victory

> The point, Mr. Victory, is that your right to have a gun is subject to law.  The Second Amendment only secures the right by law.  "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). What has happened is that by making the Second Amendment to secure an individual right, we have opened the door to federal preemption, which has now made the rights of all Americans _less_ secure.


I have an idea.  Why not answer my questions before merely regurgitating a previous reply?  You might fool some people into thinking you understand the other's point of view and have given it the proper and respectful consideration.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Unlike the Second Amendment, which does not grant any rights but only secures those under the law, the First Amendment to the Constitution is a direct grant of fundamental rights and civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In drafting the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these rights beyond state infringement. See _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Where else did the right to privacy come from? (There are some_ very_ conservative federal judges that think that there is no constitutional right to privacy!) You can count on it: we'd all have better rights to have a gun without being the more "well regulated" under the Second Amendment.


It's the militia that's supposed to be well regulated, not the guns.

FedGov is falling down on both counts.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The point, Mr. Victory, is that your right to have a gun is subject to law.  The Second Amendment only secures the right by law.  "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). What has happened is that by making the Second Amendment to secure an individual right, we have opened the door to federal preemption, which has now made the rights of all Americans _less_ secure.


You can argue your theory all day long Mr. Garner, it doesn't change the reality.

None of what you're saying changes the reality on the ground in any way, shape, or form.

You don't seem to understand the most basic thing about the American People, Graham: we will claim our rights even if our idiotic fucking government doesn't want to uphold them for us.

In truth Mr. Garner, our government is subject to the Will of the American People. This government is not a monarchy. It has no "subjects".

----------

Victory (11-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I have an idea.  Why not answer my questions before merely regurgitating a previous reply?  You might fool some people into thinking you understand the other's point of view and have given it the proper and respectful consideration.


Graham is scared shitless to look this one squarely in the eye.

I can understand why, but that doesn't change the fact.

As a lawyer bound to the Court, Graham is somewhat unqualified to speak on a corrupt law. He would be "required" to uphold the corrupt law, and therefore everything he says would be.... corrupt. Which is definitely the case, in this thread.

(Sorry Graham, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. You're way off base with this stuff, and if that's what the law says then all I'm going to tell you is it's a big fat joke 'cause it's completely unenforceable and it has zero impact on the ground game, all it is is a bunch of fraidy-cat academics in their ivory towers trying to assert their bullshit "authority", it's all about control and fear and at the end of day it resolves down to threats which is exactly what I've pointed out in your posts).

At this point, no one much cares what the shit-for-brains Justices think. They're so fucking stupid that no one wants to be "subject" to decisions like that. Everyone on the planet is ignoring those fuckers, starting from the president on down. They're useless, worthless, spineless, brain-dead. This present set of Justices makes a mockery of the concept of Constitutional Law.

----------

Victory (11-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

An excellent article on both the Constitution and the Second Amendment by Daniel J. Schultz: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

He points out what the terminology used meant in those days, as opposed to the spin and historical revisionism by some today.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

A couple of thoughts on "well regulated"

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia…" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep…arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Interestingly, there is going to be a special on the local Knoxville TV station regarding the "Battle of Athens".  The tag line is "the battle that changed how governments operated"

----------

Victory (11-06-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

Yes. At the time, "regulate" meant "regular", like well-oiled, functioning "regularly", available on demand, that kind of thing.

The idea was that well-armed citizens could be called up any time, to protect their States or even the country itself.

And now FedGov wants to disarm us? 'Cause they're scared it's them we might target?

Figures... y'know, if FedGov would stop with these idiotic power grabs we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I say again: the law is corrupt. It's completely bastardized, it's turned into the opposite of what it was intended to be.

And FedGov is wiretapping me with my own tax money.

Something is seriously wrong in this country.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> An excellent article on both the Constitution and the Second Amendment by Daniel J. Schultz: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
> 
> He points out what the terminology used meant in those days, as opposed to the spin and historical revisionism by some today.



LOL
See post 1249.  Great minds really do think alike

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> LOL
> See post 1249.  Great minds really do think alike


Yes they do.   :Smile:

----------


## Devil505

> An excellent article on both the Constitution and the Second Amendment by Daniel J. Schultz: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
> 
> He points out what the terminology used meant in those days, as opposed to the spin and historical revisionism by some today.


Can you link to when Mr. Schultz was appointed a justice on the SC? (No.....so I guess his opinion has the same legal weight as mine or the trash collector)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Can you link to when Mr. Schultz was appointed a justice on the SC? (No.....so I guess his opinion has the same legal weight as mine or the trash collector)


Same legal weight as the pot laws, Devil?  :Wink:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Can you link to when Mr. Schultz was appointed a justice on the SC? (No.....so I guess his opinion has the same legal weight as mine or the trash collector)


Translation:  I have nothing to refute the facts presented in this article so I'll just trash it with bullshit.
 @Devil505  Step up your game please.  If you have any facts or counter-arguments to refute the article, please present them.  If you do not, please act like a man, not a petulant child.

----------


## Devil505

> Translation:  I have nothing to refute the facts presented in this article so I'll just trash it with bullshit.
>  @Devil505  Step up your game please.  If you have any facts or counter-arguments to refute the article, please present them.  If you do not, please act like a man, not a petulant child.


If I took the time to read every article a Rightie challenges me to read I'd be doing nothing else.
Either give me the main point he makes or just claim victory per sop.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If I took the time to read every article a Rightie challenges me to read I'd be doing nothing else.
> Either give me the main point he makes or just claim victory per sop.


If you don't read it, why did you take the time to make a snarky reply implying you did read it?  Acting like a petulant child is one thing, but acting deceitful and condescending is much, much worse.

----------


## Devil505

> If you don't read it, why did you take the time to make a snarky reply implying you did read it?  Acting like a petulant child is one thing, but acting deceitful and condescending is much, much worse.


Reread what I posted.
I never said I read it..

Tell me the argument and stop playing games.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Reread what I posted.
> I never said I read it..
> 
> Tell me the argument and stop playing games.


David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia…" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep…arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.

----------


## hoytmonger

It should also be noted that at the time the Constitution was written (and up until the end of the War Between the States), the states were free, independent and sovereign... each state had it's own militia. For example, during the War of 1812, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island refused to put their militias under federal control outside their respective states... as was their right. In 1832, South Carolina nullified the Tariff of Abominations and threatened secession and the state assembly allocated funds to the Governor to arm the militia in case of invasion... luckily Andrew Jackson had more sense than Abraham Lincoln almost three decades later.

The US wasn't designed as a nation... it was designed as a confederacy.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Reread what I posted.
> I never said I read it..
> 
> Tell me the argument and stop playing games.


You're the one playing games and you just lost a notch of respect in my eyes.  You probably don't care and that's fine too.



> Can you link to when Mr. Schultz was appointed a justice on the SC? (No.....so I guess his opinion has the same legal weight as mine or the trash collector)





> If I took the time to read every article a Rightie challenges me to read I'd be doing nothing else.
> Either give me the main point he makes or just claim victory per sop.

----------


## Devil505

> David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
> "In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"
> Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
> Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia…" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep…arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.


OK...I have no problem with that opinion but I thought you were arguing that the purpose of the 2nd A was to allow citizens to have arms to fight their own government if it turned bad?
The article doesn't support that opinion.
(maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?)

----------


## hoytmonger

Found this interesting.

From George Mason's Master Draft of The Bill of Rights...




> That Government ought to be instituted for the Common Benefit, Protection and Security of the People; and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a Majority of the Community hath an indubitable unalienable and indefeasible Right to reform, alter or abolish it, and to establish another, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal; and that the Doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary Power and Oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and Happiness of Mankind.
> 
> That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.


Amendment proposed by Pennsylvania...




> That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.


Massachusetts, South Carolina and Maryland proposed no right to bear arms.

New Hampshire...




> Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.


Virginia...




> That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.


New York...




> That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;


North Carolina...




> That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.


http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

----------

nonsqtr (11-06-2014),Victory (11-07-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Found this interesting.
> 
> From George Mason's Master Draft of The Bill of Rights...
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment proposed by Pennsylvania...
> 
> 
> ...


How 'bout that George Mason and the Pennsylvania drafts!

I'd like to propose to the "National Guard is the militia" supporting gun grabbers that the National Guard is FAR more similar to the "standing armies" referenced in these drafts than it is to "militia."

Once again, like young George Washington and that stupid fucking cherry tree, we've been sold a lie our entire lives.

----------


## Victory

> Interestingly, there is going to be a special on the local Knoxville TV station regarding the "Battle of Athens".  The tag line is "the battle that changed how governments operated"


HELLO!

Ladies and Gents this is what I've been talking about.  The Battle of Athens!  Ima hafta look that one up.  You gotta cable/satellite channel that this is on?  Is there another venue a guy way west of the Mississippi could use to watch this?

----------


## nonsqtr

The People are the militia. 

The entire military and the military industrial complex constitutes one big gigantic *standing army*.

The CIA is part of the standing army too, and so is the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

*None of these things are necessary for the defense of the country.* 

A few nukes, and a well armed population, are more than sufficient.

No one's attacked our country in 150 years, and we've only been an empire for the last fifty. We only have a CIA today because Truman was paranoid about Josef Stalin. The CIA is unaccountable, the very charter which gave it life specifically says it's unaccountable. What we have, is an *unaccountable standing army.*

----------

usfan (11-07-2014)

----------


## Victory

> How 'bout that George Mason and the Pennsylvania drafts!
> 
> I'd like to propose to the "National Guard is the militia" supporting gun grabbers that the National Guard is FAR more similar to the "standing armies" referenced in these drafts than it is to "militia."
> 
> Once again, like young George Washington and that stupid fucking cherry tree, we've been sold a lie our entire lives.


Gun banners and other foes of the 2nd Amendment are afraid to dig into the discussions of the Constitutional Congress and the Federalist as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers because they might find out that things like "regulated militia" might not mean what they think they mean.  They ask themselves, "What if the militia is NOT the National Guard?  What if "regulated" does NOT mean "controlled?""  And so they conclude it's best to read the 2nd Amendment from their own context rather than from the context in which it was written.

Your post  @hoytmonger exposes their fear.  Well done!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> How 'bout that George Mason and the Pennsylvania drafts!
> 
> I'd like to propose to the "National Guard is the militia" supporting gun grabbers that the National Guard is FAR more similar to the "standing armies" referenced in these drafts than it is to "militia."
> ....


It is a standing army.   All the papers of the time point to "the militia" as being "We, the People".   There was no such thing as the National Guard in those days and even standing armies were viewed warily due to both cost and fear of abuse.

----------

Victory (11-07-2014)

----------


## usfan

> The People are the militia. 
> The entire military and the military industrial complex constitutes one big gigantic *standing army*.
>  What we have, is an *unaccountable standing army.*





> It is a standing army.   All the papers of the time point to "the militia" as being "We, the People".   There was no such thing as the National Guard in those days and even standing armies were viewed warily due to both cost and fear of abuse.


+2
The whole 'world policeman' role is unconstitutional.  The us govt has NO duty & certainly no right to take the taxpayers' money & spend it on 'nation building', or some other euphemism of meddling.  There is to be NO STANDING ARMY.  Even thought military tactics & technology has changed, the basic concepts of self rule have not.  The US is not an imperial state, with imperial rulers planning wars & rumors of war.  The us constitution is a REACTIVE military concept.. we defend our shores, & carry a big stick.  All the military meddling, standing armies, & industrial complex are violations of the constitution.

----------


## Graham Garner

The original intent of the Second Amendment, viz. to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. See _The Federalist Papers_, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788 ). However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The original intent of the Second Amendment, viz. to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.


Obviously you haven't read any of the links posted from knowledgeable experts and SCOTUS on the subject.

----------

Victory (11-07-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

I am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court; and I have read all of the decisions of the court on the Second Amendment.  In fact, over the past 40 years, I have read all of the Supreme Court Reports.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court; and I have read all of the decisions of the court on the Second Amendment.  In fact, over the past 40 years, I have read all of the Supreme Court Reports.


Then why don't you understand the meaning of the Second Amendment?  Why do you politicize it instead of recognizing the original intent of the Amendment?

----------


## Graham Garner

The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court say it means.

----------

Hansel (11-07-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court say it means.


So if SCOTUS says it means free soup on Tuesdays, then you are happy to support that idea.  

Does the same apply if SCOTUS says it means you have not individual rights, but must do as the collective dictates or face reeducation?  Is that the point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

----------


## Hansel

> The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court say it means.


Why can't people understand that it is merely a piece of paper without people to interpret it?  Granted, the current interpretation may vary in some cases from the 
original intent of our founders.

Damn,  I get tired of Civics 101 class every time I visit the forum. And I also get tired of the insinuation that  a lot of people are leeches living off the sweat of others.

----------


## Graham Garner

What is generally not understood is that the Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  Under the Constitution, our rights are governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.

----------


## johnson

> So if SCOTUS says it means free soup on Tuesdays, then you are happy to support that idea.  
> 
> Does the same apply if SCOTUS says it means you have not individual rights, but must do as the collective dictates or face reeducation?  Is that the point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?


Graham is just trying to be realistic about the present day interpretation and not the early ones. Our needs as a country change so the constipation must be re-interpreted to accommodate such needs.  A proper way would be to amend it but that apparently is not a practical thing to do on a frequent basis.

----------


## johnson

> What is generally not understood is that the Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  Under the Constitution, our rights are governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.


That makes sense. It would be dumb for a country to give up such prerogatives and power, especially in these turbulent times.

----------


## Devil505

I have no problem with licensed citizens carrying open or concealed..... but think it inadvisable to open carry in urban settings because it makes you an easy and tempting target for bad guys/punks to get a free gun.

----------


## Victory

> The original intent of the Second Amendment, viz. to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militias under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. See _The Federalist Papers_, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788 ). However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)


I replied to  @hoytmonger that his excellent examples of 2nd Amendment drafts really blows holes clear through this dishonest notion that the National Guard replaces the militia.  In fact, if you actually READ those drafts it's clear the National Guard is the very "standing army" the drafters cautioned against.

You may now ignore this reply and regurgitate a retread of one of your earlier replies.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-07-2014)

----------


## Victory

> I have no problem with licensed citizens carrying open or concealed..... but think it inadvisable to open carry in urban settings because it makes you an easy and tempting target for bad guys/punks to get a free gun.


. . .said no cop ever who carries a gun.

----------


## Victory

> Graham is just trying to be realistic about the present day interpretation and not the early ones. Our needs as a country change so the constipation must be re-interpreted to accommodate such needs. * A proper way would be to amend it but that apparently is not a practical thing to do on a frequent basis*.


As they said in 1776, "Tough shit."

----------


## Victory

> What is generally not understood is that the Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  Under the Constitution, our rights are governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.


Since you are a retired member of the bar of the Supreme Court I think each one of your posts really demonstrates how jacked up our judicial system is at the highest echelons.  Your posts are extremely enlightening but probably not for the reasons you intended.

----------

nonsqtr (11-07-2014)

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court say it means.


Sorry, that is entirely not acceptable.

The Supreme Court must operate within the Constitution of the United States.

It has *no other scope*, no other jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court is *required by law* and by their sworn Oaths of Office, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States *exactly as it is written.*

The Supreme Court may *not* make up new meanings for words in the English language, and it may *not* arbitrarily pull an entirely unrelated concept out of its butt and say "this is what it means".

And to the extent it does stuff like that, the Supreme Court is *operating in an un-Constitutional manner and check and balance need to be brought down upon it to ensure that it remains within Constitutional boundaries*.

As a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court, why don't you take that information back to your masters and tell them to

*GROW A BRAIN!*

 :Angry20:

----------


## nonsqtr

> Why can't people understand that it is merely a piece of paper without people to interpret it?


People *WROTE* it, you dummy. What the hell kind of lawyer are you anyway? You sound more like a goddamn *communist* than anything resembling a political conservative.




> Granted, the current interpretation may vary in some cases from the  original intent of our founders.


Yeah? Is that so? Would you mind enumerating a few of those for us please, Graham?




> Damn,  I get tired of Civics 101 class every time I visit the forum.


You're getting the lecture because you must have *failed* the first time around.A




> And I also get tired of the insinuation that  a lot of people are leeches living off the sweat of others.


Right now the United States Government is a leech living off of *my* sweat (and yours).

Those rotten fucking bastards better get their act together fast or they're going to have trouble on an unimaginable scale.

----------


## nonsqtr

> What is generally not understood is that the Second Amendment does not grant any rights.


Now you're getting warmer.

And it only took you two weeks.




> See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  Under the Constitution, our rights are governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.


You don't get it yet, do you Graham?

You work for *us*, pal. Not the nine robed idiots. You say you're a member of the Bar? Then you work for the People. The People pay your masters' salaries. It is the People whose *justice* you are sworn to uphold.

And *you* do not get to define what that Justice is, and the nine Robed Morons don't get to do that either.

That decisions is made by the People, and *only* the People. We write the law, you merely interpret it. That's the way it works Graham, and if you don't like that you should be immediately disbarred and prevented from practicing law anywhere in this country.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Since you are a retired member of the bar of the Supreme Court I think each one of your posts really demonstrates how jacked up our judicial system is at the highest echelons.  Your posts are extremely enlightening but probably not for the reasons you intended.


Exactly.

+1000

Graham is showing us exactly how truly fucked up our system has become.

----------


## Devil505

> . . .said no cop ever who carries a gun.


Uniformed cops have no choice. (the uniform kinda gives them away)
When they have a choice they don't advertise.

----------


## RMNIXON

> *I have no problem with licensed citizens carrying open or concealed..... but think it inadvisable to open carry in urban settings because it makes you an easy and tempting target for bad guys/punks to get a free gun.*



So you admit the liberal multicultural settings are the more dangerous?  :Thinking:

----------

Conservative Libertarian (11-08-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

What the Second Amendment means is not for you to determine; that is the province of the judiciary; and unto this last,  it is the meaning ascribed by the Supreme Court that counts. The Supreme Court has read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." _United States v. Miller_,  307 U.S. 174 (1939).  Likewise, the lower federal courts have consistently interpreted the Second Amendment as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. _Miller_ has not been overturned, and, to the contrary, was cited extensively with approval by the Supreme Court in _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

----------


## hoytmonger

> The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court say it means.





> Why can't people understand that it is merely a piece of paper without people to interpret it?  Granted, the current interpretation may vary in some cases from the 
> original intent of our founders.
> 
> Damn,  I get tired of Civics 101 class every time I visit the forum. And I also get tired of the insinuation that  a lot of people are leeches living off the sweat of others.


The SCOTUS has no final authority to interpret the Constitution. The authority granted to the SCOTUS is defined in the enumerated powers in Article III.

Having nine activist lawyers, dressed in black robes with lifetime tenure in the federal government, define the authority possessed by the federal government and subject the lives and behaviors of millions to their decisions is a judiciary dictatorship. The intent of the SCOTUS was debated at length during the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification conventions of the several states. It's sad that a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers, twisting the definitions of words and phrases in the Constitution to favor their own agendas, have reduced what was a grand political experiment to an authoritarian tyranny.




> What is generally not understood is that the Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  Under the Constitution, our rights are governed by law. In this, the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation. Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.


True that the Second Amendment doesn't grant any rights... government does not grant rights. The Second Amendment attempts to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms... from the government. Laws that infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional.

----------

Victory (11-07-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> What the Second Amendment means is not for you to determine; that is the province of the judiciary; and unto this last,  it is the meaning ascribed by the Supreme Court that counts. The Supreme Court has read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." _United States v. Miller_,  307 U.S. 174 (1939).  Likewise, the lower federal courts have consistently interpreted the Second Amendment as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. _Miller_ has not been overturned, and, to the contrary, was cited extensively with approval by the Supreme Court in _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).


Yes, actually, the Second Amendment is for the people and the states to determine... as much and as equally as it is for the SCOTUS to determine... see Amendment X.

----------


## Graham Garner

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as federal law in all jurisdictions of the United States.  Furthermore, the powers retained under the Tenth Amendment do not trump federal supremacy under Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as federal law in all jurisdictions of the United States.  Furthermore, the powers retained under the Tenth Amendment do not trump federal supremacy under Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.


The federal government is *limited in scope* by the Constitution of the United States.

*No* branch of the federal government may exceed the scope authorized for it by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the law. Only a very misguided lawyer would say such an idiotic thing.

----------


## Graham Garner

The Supreme Court is most certainly the final arbiter of the law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

----------


## Roadmaster

> The Supreme Court is most certainly the final arbiter of the law.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


 No it's not the people are. If they want a bloodbath they will get it trying to take our guns.

----------


## nonsqtr

> The Supreme Court is most certainly the final arbiter of the law.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


Mr. Misguided Lawyer, are you not familiar with Article V of our Constitution?

The Supreme Court is most certainly *not* the final arbiter of the law!

If We the People don't like the law, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, *we change it.*

The law is whatever *We* say it is, not your shit for brains Moron Justices.  :Angry20:

----------


## nonsqtr

> No it's not the people are. If they want a bloodbath they will get it trying to take our guns.


Well there's that too, but before that happens there are legal and constitutional options.

But yeah you're right, if it comes right down to it we can just shoot the fuckers and be done with it. I don't think anyone wants that though (I certainly don't).

However if we're left with no other choice...  :Dontknow:

----------


## Graham Garner

Just advocating that is a federal offence under18 U.S.C. § 2385.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to win a long prison sentence and lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Just advocating that is a federal offence under18 U.S.C. § 2385.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to win a long prison sentence and lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


Threats again?

You can't intimidate me, pal. I probably know the law even better than you do.  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

If you got anything actionable, bring it. I'll be right here waiting your jackbooted thugs to break down my door.

You got nothin' Graham. You're all talk and all *lies*. If you really think the Justices control our law then you're just a Sheeple, you've been swept away by the corrupt system and you've bought into everything they're feeding you.

Everyone knows what this equation is about, Graham. You're not fooling anyone. (Least of all anyone here).

IMO each and every one of us is flexible, we can all stretch and we will accommodate a nice friendly civil law even if it does a few unpleasant things from time to time.

But bullshit authority pulled from deep inside the butt is *dictatorship*, and that will not stand. That will not ever stand, and there are 300 million Americans keeping watch to make sure it doesn't even try to get up.

*We* make the law, and *We* decide what it means.

Get that through your thick head, Mr. Lawyer. We are no one's "subjects". You and the Supreme Morons and every other government official work for *Us*.

Got that?

If you don't like the job, then *resign*, and make way so we can find someone who will actually do the job that *We* set out for them to do.

That's all, I'm done here.

----------


## Graham Garner

The people don't write the law, Mr. nonsqtr, the law is written by their elected representatives. Likewise, the two methods for amendment of the Constitution are by the elected representative of the people to Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Well there's that too, but before that happens there are legal and constitutional options.
> 
> But yeah you're right, if it comes right down to it we can just shoot the fuckers and be done with it. I don't think anyone wants that though (I certainly don't).
> 
> However if we're left with no other choice...


And make sure the ones wanting to pass this law lives in fear of the people. See they think they can pass them and escape justice. It's always best to attack the source.

----------


## Graham Garner

Are you paranoid Mr. roadmaster?  Have you no faith in your elected representatives to Congress and your state legislatures?  Do you have authority to take the law into your own hands?  What would that do to the Constitution?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Are you paranoid Mr. roadmaster?  Have you no faith in your elected representatives to Congress and your state legislatures?  Do you have authority to take the law into your own hands?  What would that do to the Constitution?


 I would take the law into my own hands Mr. Garner. So would many others that the government thought they could take guns away from citizens.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Just advocating that is a federal offence under18 U.S.C. § 2385.  Know this:  The surest (and swiftest) way to win a long prison sentence and lose your right to have a gun is to point it at the government.


Because no entity hates opposition more than tyranny, right Graham?

----------


## Victory

> The Supreme Court is most certainly the final arbiter of the law.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx


I've always kinda figured a jury of peers is the final arbiter of the law.

Jury Nullification anyone?

How do you explain the existence of jury nullification, Graham?  Doesn't JN trump the hell out of anything and everything ever done by the executive, legislative or judicial branch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Would jury nullification present a problem to, say, a case in Colorado where a man would be brought to trial for selling a high capacity magazine?  Let's say the guy is guilty as sin.  The prosecution has incriminating pictures, numerous eye witnesses, and a confession.  But one or two jurors in deliberation convince the rest that the law is utter bullshit and the guy should never have been arrested for breaking a bullshit law.  The jury acquits.

Who was the final arbiter of the law, Graham, the Supreme Court or the jury?

Doesn't apply because it's a state law not a federal law?  The same damn thing could happen for a person violating the Federal Firearms Act of 1939.  Jury nullification was a key factor in the decision to REPEAL Prohibition!  So choose your poison.  Who is the final arbiter of the law, Graham?

And we haven't even touched citizens in rebellion!

----------

usfan (11-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I have no problem with licensed citizens carrying open or concealed..... but think it inadvisable to open carry in urban settings because it makes you an easy and tempting target for bad guys/punks to get a free gun.


But the CONSTITUTION does not permit licensing or "permitting" or ANY form of infringement on the individual's right to bear arms, concealed or otherwise.

So what difference do your FEELINGS make?

----------


## Sled Dog

> As a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court, why don't you take that information back to your masters and tell them to
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN!*


So you're telling me that the town GG lives has a nightclub called the Supreme Court and he's the janitor?

er...ex-janitor?

----------


## Sled Dog

> The People are the militia. 
> 
> The entire military and the military industrial complex constitutes one big gigantic *standing army*.
> 
> The CIA is part of the standing army too, and so is the Department of Homeland Insecurity.
> 
> *None of these things are necessary for the defense of the country.* 
> 
> A few nukes, and a well armed population, are more than sufficient.
> ...


What a load of crap, with peanuts AND corn in it.

Just in case you missed the memo, the United States was attacked by a foreign nation on September 11th, 2001.    

Since you're not militarily inclined, we kept a large army in Europe because nuking the Soviets WHEN they invaded Western Europe would not have been an option.  Period.   It was miltarily NECESSARY to have men on the ground to ensure American response in the event of a Soviet thrust.  That's called "reality".  

Protecting a democratic Korea was not only in our best interests, it protected Japan, to whom we were obligated by treaty to provide military defense for.   Again, not fighting was not an option, not keeping troops in occupation after the cease-fire was not an option.   

Lyin' Lyndon pushed us all the way into Vietnam, for petty personal political reasons.

The military reality is that national defense happens best for us on someone else's shores.  That's not a complicated strategy.  Waiting until the fires are out in the World Trade Center before building an army to defend the nation is what sensible people call a "stupid fucking plan for Anthony Weiners".

And, finally, the United States IS NOT an "empire".

If it is, it's the only "empire" to ever return real estate to the people who occupied it before as soon as it can feasibly be done.

We kicked Germany's ass.   Where is their representation in the US House of Representatives?   What about Japan's?   Where's Iraq's seat at our table?  We won that war without question.  How's our colony the Philipines doing these days?   I see they never come to vote on US law.  Why is that?


If the US was going to be an empire, wouldn't we have digested all the cute canuck women by now?   No, the Land of Canada is still foolishly independent of the US.

But the US is being digested by Mexico, doesn't that mean that Mexico is a larger and much more dangerous empire than the imaginary US Empire?

Why do you insist on repeating the Moron Mantras the Rodents use to fire up their Idiot Supporters?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Can you link to when Mr. Schultz was appointed a justice on the SC? (No.....so I guess his opinion has the same legal weight as mine or the trash collector)


Well, I'd trust the trash collector before you.  He isn't famous for basing hs arguments on presumed authorities.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Unlike the Second Amendment, which does not grant any rights but only secures those under the law, the First Amendment to the Constitution is a direct grant of fundamental rights and civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In drafting the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these rights beyond state infringement. See _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Where else did the right to privacy come from? (There are some_ very_ conservative federal judges that think that there is no constitutional right to privacy!) You can count on it: we'd all have better rights to have a gun without being the more "well regulated" under the Second Amendment.


Total nonsense.

The Constitution does not GRANT one single "right".   It forbids the Congress from interfering from an itemized list of EXISTING rights, and the Ninth Amendment is the catch-all statement protecting ALL rights not otherwise listed.

A phrase forbiding the Congress from passing a law on a topic IS NOT a "grant" of anything.   It's a leash on the government, and nothing more.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Is there a nation on earth that recognizes/affords their citizens right to keep and bear arms more than the US? Do those nations have a 2nd Amendment?
> 
> I'm thinking the answer to the first is, "no," and the answer to the second is moot.
> 
> What government, in their right minds, would have a 2nd Amendment if they're really concerned about their own survival?


Thing to point out is that those nations don't have constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion, either.

Just ask Canada.

----------


## Graham Garner

In response to the Post#1308 by Mr. Victory:  "jury nullification" is nothing more than jury misconduct. Jurors take oath to render their verdict based upon the evidence admitted at trial and in accordance with the legal instructions given by the court. Our courts are established to administer justice under the law, they are not courts of popular appeal; and it is misconduct for a jury to disregard court instructions and substitute their own judgment for the law. Such is a violation of their oath and constitutes a miscarriage of justice; and may warrant the court taking a case from the jurys verdict and ordering a mistrial.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Jury nullification is a statement by the jury that we think the law is a steaming pile of shit and we aren't going to convict anyone of this steaming pile of shit law.  The German people were complicit in the deaths of millions of people because it was "the law".  Mindless adherence to "the law" is a sure recipe for tyranny.  The American people have never been overly fond of tyranny.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-08-2014),usfan (11-08-2014),Victory (11-08-2014)

----------


## Graham Garner

Since I am speaking of jury misconduct, Mr. Sled Dog, what is the source of your right to a jury trial? Is it not granted by the Seventh Amendment?  (One should be mindful of the dark days in history during the Spanish Inquisition and the English Court of Star Chamber.)  And, it may surprise you to learn that your right to a jury trial - even under the Seventh Amendment -  is not absolute.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, Dr. Felix Birdbiter, it is not for the citizens to take the law into their own hands - that's not the way we do things in America. The Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, and not a direct democracy (albeit that there is authority by the states to enact law by public referendum).  We act through our elected representatives - not by ourselves.

----------


## usfan

> No, Dr. Felix Birdbiter, it is not for the citizens to take the law into their own hands - that's not the way we do things in America. The Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, and not a direct democracy (albeit that there is authority by the states to enact law by public referendum).  We act through our elected representatives - not by ourselves.


A lot of our differences in here are just semantics.  What & who is the 'ultimate arbiter' of justice?  The machinery is one thing, the source of it is another.  The constitution & the courts are the machinery.  The legislators are machinery.  The PEOPLE are the originators of it all.  This country was founded on the principle of LAW.  We are a constitutional republic.. a nation of law.  But if the law becomes corrupt, & it becomes an instrument of plunder, as bastiat spoke of, then the people.. or at least some people.. can & will intervene.  Depending on their level of altruism, they will either join in the plunder, or try to correct the problems.

*It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. ~Frederic Bastiat

*And of course, ultimately, the people have the final say.  The 'Law' had little effect on those storming the bastille, or the american revolutionaries at lexington.  It becomes meaningless drivel, & loses all power if the people rise up in defiance.

One man's 'freedom fighter' is another man's 'terrorist'.  You can either 'take the law into your own hands', or 'liberate the people from unjust tyranny'.  The winners of the wars get to decide the language used.  But when reason & common sense do not prevail, & sometimes, even if concessions are made, the wheels of revolution are already turning, & the cycles of history continue.  Change is certain.  What that change is is not.

_Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frederic Bastiat_

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014),JustPassinThru (11-08-2014),Victory (11-08-2014)

----------


## usfan

> In response to the Post#1308 by Mr. Victory:  "jury nullification" is nothing more than jury misconduct. Jurors take oath to render their verdict based upon the evidence admitted at trial and in accordance with the legal instructions given by the court. Our courts are established to administer justice under the law, they are not courts of popular appeal; and it is misconduct for a jury to disregard court instructions and substitute their own judgment for the law. Such is a violation of their oath and constitutes a miscarriage of justice; and may warrant the court taking a case from the jury’s verdict and ordering a mistrial.


I would like to point out that you use the 'higher power' of common sense interpretation of law to judge that a 'miscarriage of justice' has occurred.  That is all many here are talking about.  If the law is being blatantly misused, & miscarriages of the law are done by distortion of the obvious, common sense interpretation of the law, THEN the people will defy  the law.  They see it as a miscarriage, & will not respect it or submit to it.  This is not the exclusive domain of jurists or the courts.  The people have common sense, too.

----------


## Graham Garner

No, Mr. usfan: it is not for the people to defy the law; but rather - through their elected representatives - to change the law.  That's the way we do things in America - we effect change by vote, not by violence; by lawful process through the courts, not by lawlessness. What I am trying to tell everyone here, is that it is the law that is the only guaranty of the security of our rights for the simple reason that our rights exist only by law.

----------


## freyasman

> Waterboarding was only torture in the fetid dim minds of Leftist tools; and in the hyperbole of their agitators and propagandists.


Bullshit. Anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture should try it sometime. And if they aren't willing to do that, then they should STFU.

----------


## Hansel

Another victim of the Washington shooter has died.  I think that makes five now, five pointless deaths of young people.

----------


## Victory

> In response to the Post#1308 by Mr. Victory:  "jury nullification" is nothing more than jury misconduct. Jurors take oath to render their verdict based upon the evidence admitted at trial and in accordance with the legal instructions given by the court. Our courts are established to administer justice under the law, they are not courts of popular appeal; and it is misconduct for a jury to disregard court instructions and substitute their own judgment for the law. Such is a violation of their oath and constitutes a miscarriage of justice; and may warrant the court taking a case from the jurys verdict and ordering a mistrial.


This is one of those posts that highlights just how jacked up our judicial system is!

Jury oaths are a 20th century phenomenon.  They are a Progressive instrument designed to take power away from the citizen.  They are also unconstitutional because they introduce a crisis of conscience.  The First Amendment guarantees the government will not interfere with a person's religious beliefs.  That's not just while in church but while out in the public, at home, everywhere.  And it is most definitely against MANY peoples' religious and faith beliefs to convict a man on bullshit charges.

The oath is null and void by introducing a "mental reservation."  What does your law experience tell you about that Graham?  A juror upon taking the oath "trusts" that the case (which he doesn't even know the nature of yet) will not interfere with his morals.  This is a mental reservation and therefore the oath is not valid.

Jury nullification has a long and distinguished history going well back before the American Revolution far back into England's history.  It is only in the 20th century that Progressives have tried to usurp the power of the jury via jury oaths.




> it is misconduct for a jury to disregard court instructions and substitute their own judgment for the law.


You CAN'T force a jury to convict against their beliefs!  That's the tough shit bind you lawyers and judges are in!  Suck it up buttercup!

If your quote were the case then the Supreme Court is in direct conflict with the jury in competition for final arbitration of the law!  You can't have it both ways.  You can't have the SC as final arbiter and then HAND THE LAW OVER to the jury to decide the fate of the accused WITHOUT listening in on jury deliberations!  If the jury understands that they may be held accountable for the decision they make then the entire jury system is destroyed!  Who the hell is going to serve on a jury knowing their decision may bring scrutiny to THEM?  You have no jury system at that point!




> may warrant the court taking a case from the jurys verdict and ordering a mistrial.


When has that happened?  Wouldn't that constitute "jury tampering?"  Keep throwing out the case until the judge gets the verdict he's looking for?  Kiss your fair and impartial jury good bye, Graham!

Jury nullification exists whether the SC likes it or not.  So you have to decide, Graham.  Which do you want?  An "infallible" Supreme Court, or a _FAIR_ and impartial jury?  (Heavy emphasis on the "fair."  A "fair" jury does NOT convict a man for violating a bullshit law.  That would be UNfair.)  You can't have both.

And jury nullification is sewn into the Constitution.  The concept came up many times in the Constitutional Convention and was embraced by the founders.  They wanted the jury absolutely untouchable.  You are trying to destroy that concept.

----------

usfan (11-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Another victim of the Washington shooter has died.  I think that makes five now, five pointless deaths of young people.


Very sad.  What is sadder is that the Democrats and other Lefties think banning guns will solve all street violence, bullying, gangs and mental illness yet they offer little more than lip-service to actually curing those problems instead of just treating the symptoms of the problems.

Do you really think guns were the cause of the problem in that or any other shooting or do you think it is something else? @Hansel

----------


## usfan

> No, Mr. usfan: it is not for the people to defy the law; but rather - through their elected representatives - to change the law.  That's the way we do things in America - we effect change by vote, not by violence; by lawful process through the courts, not by lawlessness. What I am trying to tell everyone here, is that it is the law that is the only guaranty of the security of our rights for the simple reason that our rights exist only by law.


Sure, that is the preferred method.. especially by americans.  But they have not always done that.  Sometimes, they take up arms & defy the ruling authority.  They did it with king george, & they did it with lincoln.  They won with king george, but lincoln defeated the 'southern rebellion' with superior POWER, not by reciting law scripts.

Our rights exist by our own power.  If we have the power, collectively, to defend & secure our rights, then they are ours.  If we do not have the power, then they are not ours.  We can kill & die to take whatever rights we think we deserve, but only power secures them.  Our govt is supposed to reflect the collective will of the people, & is charged with securing our basic rights to life & property.  As long as they do that, & do not oppress us too much with interfering policies, we tend to live in peace with them.  But, if we cannot preserve our rights by legal channels, we will do it by the overriding power factor.  It always trumps legalese.

The history of the world is the story of rises & falls from power & control.  LAW is at times appealed to, as are 'inalienable rights', God & King, or other philosophical terms used to inspire the warriors to kill & die for their cause.  But the final arbiter of any law, philosophy, creed, or govt system is human power.  Nowhere, & at no time does good win by words.  It is merely redefined to fit the victor's methods.  Defying the law is nothing new.  It is as old as man himself.  We have defied it, rewritten it, killed & died for it, redefined it, & ignored it for millennia.

And, to keep this topical, firearms have been a boon to the common man.  It is the great 'equalizer' that put a farmer on more equal footing with a trained soldier.  They are a source of american liberty, & a symbol of it.  To let the 'govt' be the only ones to have weapons is to undermine the american spirit & remove a powerful deterrence to govt overreach.  It is good & proper for the govt to fear the people.  They should, & have become too cocky & arrogant lately.  Perhaps a subtle reminder of WHO is in charge would be in order.

*When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson* 

_A liberal paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities and only law enforcement personnel have guns. And, believe it or not, such a liberal utopia does indeed exist. ... Its called prison. ~Joe Arpaio

_

----------

Victory (11-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Since I am speaking of jury misconduct, Mr. Sled Dog, what is the source of your right to a jury trial? Is it not granted by the Seventh Amendment?


No.

It is a right already in existence then recognized by the Seventh Amendment.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, *the right of trial by jury shall be preserved*, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


So, what does the term "shall be preserved" mean, except a recognition that the right already existed?

Hmmmm?

Why do you bother, when you're always wrong?




> (One should be mindful of the dark days in history during the Spanish Inquisition and the English Court of Star Chamber.)


We are fully aware of the things you Rodents support and work to create.




> And, it may surprise you to learn that your right to a jury trial - even under the Seventh Amendment - is not absolute.


Yeah, it is. It can also be violated, such as the time recently when a man in Washington DC was railroaded into a criminal trial sans jury and was convicted by the judge for the evil unlawful deadly dangerous possession of ONE (1) spent shotgun shell, and lost his right to own weapons thereby.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, Mr. usfan: it is not for the people to defy the law; but rather - through their elected representatives - to change the law. That's the way we do things in America - we effect change by vote, not by violence; by lawful process through the courts, not by lawlessness. What I am trying to tell everyone here, is that it is the law that is the only guaranty of the security of our rights for the simple reason that our rights exist only by law.


Yeah, if the people are wimpy spineless fools living in socialist Europe or King Ebola voters in the use.  Those people can't be trusted to tie their shoes, hence the invention of velcro shoe ties.

But REAL MEN, aka Americans, will take the duty upon themselves to render a not guilty verdict if they feel the law is unjust.   Put me on a trial of someone accused of bombing an abortion factory and I'm going to say Not Guilty every time.    There would be no need to bomb abortion factories if there were no abortion factories, and the saving of even a few unborn lives would be justifiable.

Or do you disagree that the Allied High Command should have diverted some bombing runs to the socialist extermination camps to destroy the murder chambers?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Bullshit. Anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture should try it sometime. And if they aren't willing to do that, then they should STFU.


Special Forces troops and trained interrogators DO endure it.  So they know what it is, how to use it properly as a technique; in the case of Special Forces, to simulate the kind of duress they might be given at the hands of the Enemy.

Anyone who maintains it is "torture" probably has a great misunderstanding of what it really IS.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Special Forces troops and trained interrogators DO endure it.  So they know what it is, how to use it properly as a technique; in the case of Special Forces, to simulate the kind of duress they might be given at the hands of the Enemy.
> 
> Anyone who maintains it is "torture" probably has a great misunderstanding of what it really IS.


Yes they do, but they also know it will stop and, if they like, they can stop it, albeit it means they are no longer in the program.

Anyone who maintains such a thing isn't torture would turn into pussy real quick it the police used it as a common means of interrogation.  Look at those screaming about the IRS.

----------


## freyasman

> Special Forces troops and trained interrogators DO endure it.  So they know what it is, how to use it properly as a technique; in the case of Special Forces, to simulate the kind of duress they might be given at the hands of the Enemy.
> 
> Anyone who maintains it is "torture" probably has a great misunderstanding of what it really IS.


They aren't the only ones; you ever try it? Get back to me when you have.

----------


## Hansel

Perhaps it is a mental torture rather than a physical one?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yes they do, but they also know it will stop and, if they like, they can stop it, albeit it means they are no longer in the program.
> 
> Anyone who maintains such a thing isn't torture would turn into pussy real quick it the police used it as a common means of interrogation.  Look at those screaming about the IRS.


Military forces are not police; prisoners of war...ESPIONAGE participants, who fight under no flag...are not crime suspects.

And Constitutional protections only (properly) apply to Americans on American soil.  And even those liberties can be curtailed - as in a situation of martial law.

What the cops can properly do to me has no bearing on the discussion.  Guerrilla forces with no identification as regular soldiers in any army, can and should be SHOT.

Anything less is a privilege bestowed.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> They aren't the only ones; you ever try it? Get back to me when you have.


I'm not going to relay my military experience to a sanctimonious, lippy...(adjective).

I have had to deal with stuff that would curl your gay tootsies; and it wasn't even in war.  Know what a shipboard fire can turn into?  When you're in the Navy and your DivO tells you your assignment in emergencies is on the fire party, YOU ARE ON IT.

And if you die in a fire, tough toenails.  Lots of ways to lose your life at sea.

I didn't join the Navy to be a firefighter, but that didn't matter.  I, and thirty others, had to put it out...there was no dialing 9-1-1 at sea.  We WERE 9-1-1.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Perhaps it is a mental torture rather than a physical one?


It's to break the interrogatee with fear.  Goatherders who've been solicited by their mullahs to get in line for the 73 virgins, don't understand the American Uniform Code of Military Justice.  They do not KNOW; and MOST nations' armed forces are not so limited.  

If you're prisoner of a Russian unit, and an officer puts a cocked pistol to your head, it's a reasonable suspicion that he's going to trip that trigger.

These captives aren't our guests to be entertained.  They are prisoners; and just allowing them to live, is mercy.

Fit soldiers, even guerrilla soldiers, don't die of fear.

----------


## freyasman

> I'm not going to relay my military experience to a sanctimonious, lippy...(adjective).
> 
> I have had to deal with stuff that would curl your gay tootsies; and it wasn't even in war.  Know what a shipboard fire can turn into?  When you're in the Navy and your DivO tells you your assignment in emergencies is on the fire party, YOU ARE ON IT.
> 
> And if you die in a fire, tough toenails.  Lots of ways to lose your life at sea.
> 
> I didn't join the Navy to be a firefighter, but that didn't matter.  I, and thirty others, had to put it out...there was no dialing 9-1-1 at sea.  We WERE 9-1-1.


Airborne Infantry, just retired after 20 years, 90% disability rating due to accumulated injuries, multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, Central America before that, I'm one of the only guys outside of 7th Group to earn jump wings from Guatemala and El Salvador.... sorry squid, I'm just not impressed.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Airborne Infantry, just retired after 20 years, 90% disability rating due to accumulated injuries, multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, Central America before that, I'm one of the only guys outside of 7th Group to earn jump wings from Guatemala and El Salvador.... sorry squid, I'm just not impressed.


Nor I.

Anyone can be an Internet hero.


I brought it up because YOU suggested that I would just faint away like all your fruitilicious friends, at the idea of getting dunked.

Not so.

----------


## freyasman

> Nor I.
> 
> Anyone can be an Internet hero.
> 
> 
> I brought it up because YOU suggested that I would just faint away like all your fruitilicious friends, at the idea of getting dunked.
> 
> Not so.


So what you're saying is.... you got nothing, and you're just talking shit. 
For the record, I didn't "suggest" a damn thing; I said get back to me when you've had it done to you, because until you have, you don't know what you're talking about. (And yes.... 11B's know how to use computers, too.)

----------


## JustPassinThru

No, that's not what I said.

That's what you want me to say.

What else you done, besides twenty years in Special Forces?  Were you CIA, too?  Got a License to Kill?  Hands licensed as Deadly Weapons?

 :Pointlaugh:

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014)

----------


## freyasman

> No, that's not what I said.
> 
> That's what you want me to say.
> 
> What else you done, besides twenty years in Special Forces?  Were you CIA, too?  Got a License to Kill?  Hands licensed as Deadly Weapons?


You need some reading comprehension lessons. 11B, not 18 series; Airborne Infantry, not Special Forces... anything else you need explained?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, that's not what I said.
> 
> That's what you want me to say.
> 
> What else you done, besides twenty years in Special Forces?  Were you CIA, too?  Got a License to Kill?  Hands licensed as Deadly Weapons?


Ridiculing vets won't garner you any sympathy from me for your own problems.

----------

freyasman (11-09-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Ridiculing vets won't garner you any sympathy from me for your own problems.


I'm a vet myself.  Remember?

I'm ridiculing play-soldiers; Internet heroes.  Like his gay-boyo avatar says...haters gotta hate.

I hate liars and phoneys.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014)

----------


## freyasman

> I'm a vet myself.  Remember?
> 
> I'm ridiculing play-soldiers; Internet heroes.  Like his gay-boyo avatar says...haters gotta hate.
> 
> I hate liars and phoneys.


You're just showing your ass, is what you're doing.  :Lame:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm a vet myself.  Remember?
> 
> I'm ridiculing play-soldiers; Internet heroes.  Like his gay-boyo avatar says...haters gotta hate.
> 
> I hate liars and phoneys.


If you are really a vet then you should know better.  Yes, haters gotta hate and you're the one doing the hating here.

----------

freyasman (11-09-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> If you are really a vet then you should know better.  Yes, haters gotta hate and you're the one doing the hating here.


I am a veteran; but it changes nothing.  Our boyfriend, here, was just so MORTIFIED at what was being done - justht YOU try it, thumtime!

I have done as bad and worse; and so have you.  I just stated my military service as WHERE I did worse - something all veterans can relate to.

Well, our acrobat, here, had to play "Can You Top This."  I was describing my experience in terms most could relate to.  HE was using the "appeal to authority" fallacy - he's a career military hero (not) so don't I dare be doubting his word!

I have two words to answer that; and those words are not "Merry Christmas."

I don't CARE whether he, or you, or anyone believes my time in the service.  It changes nothing of our tangent, to wit:  Waterboarding is NOT torture!

----------

Sled Dog (11-08-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> *The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as federal law in all jurisdictions of the United States.*  Furthermore, the powers retained under the Tenth Amendment do not trump federal supremacy under Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.


Where does it state this in the Constitution? I can't seem to find it here...

ARTICLE III


SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


SECTION. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.


SECTION. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

As to your second point, the alleged 'federal supremacy' under Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution only applies to laws made _in pursuance of_ the Constitution. Therefore it has absolutely no bearing on Amendment X.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No, Dr. Felix Birdbiter, it is not for the citizens to take the law into their own hands - that's not the way we do things in America. The Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, and not a direct democracy (albeit that there is authority by the states to enact law by public referendum).  We act through our elected representatives - not by ourselves.



When the law no longer follows the rights protected by the Constitution the people have an obligation to undo those laws.  When our elected representatives no longer represent those who put them in office the people have a right to remove them by force if necessary.  See the Battle of Athens.  See the Declaration of Independence.  You may think the DOI has no standing but it is the very foundation upon with the Constitution rest.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yes they do, but they also know it will stop and, if they like, they can stop it, albeit it means they are no longer in the program.
> 
> Anyone who maintains such a thing isn't torture would turn into pussy real quick it the police used it as a common means of interrogation. Look at those screaming about the IRS.


Is there any particular reason all of you people can't figure out that WAR is not a LEGAL matter?  The two topics are not related, the functions of the police and military are different, and for some reason EVERYONE that brings up this bogus "if the police blahblahblah..." argument want the terrorists to win the conflict.  Because the US is so eeeevilllle!

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-08-2014),JustPassinThru (11-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You need some reading comprehension lessons. 11B, not 18 series; Airborne Infantry, not Special Forces... anything else you need explained?


"Infantry"...those are the ones wearing the diapers, aren't they?

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Since I am speaking of jury misconduct, Mr. Sled Dog, what is the source of your right to a jury trial? Is it not granted by the Seventh Amendment?  (One should be mindful of the dark days in history during the Spanish Inquisition and the English Court of Star Chamber.)  And, it may surprise you to learn that your right to a jury trial - even under the Seventh Amendment -  is not absolute.



The Constitution protects the right of trial by jury in both the 6th and 7th Amendment.  A trial by jury, it does not demand that jury follow the law.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I'm not going to relay my military experience to a sanctimonious, lippy...(adjective).
> 
> I have had to deal with stuff that would curl your gay tootsies; and it wasn't even in war.  Know what a shipboard fire can turn into?  When you're in the Navy and your DivO tells you your assignment in emergencies is on the fire party, YOU ARE ON IT.
> 
> And if you die in a fire, tough toenails.  Lots of ways to lose your life at sea.
> 
> I didn't join the Navy to be a firefighter, but that didn't matter.  I, and thirty others, had to put it out...there was no dialing 9-1-1 at sea.  We WERE 9-1-1.


A fire at sea is perhaps the most terrifying event that can happen.  When a ship is on fire there is no where safe that you can go and just ignore the fire.  If you are in a building you can leave the building and get away.  A fire at sea puts you all in the same boat, pun intended.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Is there any particular reason all of you people can't figure out that WAR is not a LEGAL matter?  The two topics are not related, the functions of the police and military are different, and for some reason EVERYONE that brings up this bogus "if the police blahblahblah..." argument want the terrorists to win the conflict.  Because the US is so eeeevilllle!


So you agree with the concept of total war?  If we go to war, murder, rape and genocide are fair game?

----------


## JustPassinThru

Killing soldiers is not murder.

Rape and looting are undisciplined acts of a mob.  A military unit has a mission - and that mission is not to get Polackski's rocks off or a neat watch for Schmuckatelli.

Their mission is to act according to plans and strategy set up.  The grand strategy usually has something to do with demoralizing the enemy by killing his soldiers and breaking his infrastructure.

Looting and rape are treated as crimes under the UCMJ...those are legal matters within the structure of the military unit.  But war is not crime and prisoners are not suspects.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (11-09-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Since *I am speaking of jury misconduct,* Mr. Sled Dog, what is the source of your right to a jury trial? Is it not granted by the Seventh Amendment?  (One should be mindful of the dark days in history during the Spanish Inquisition and the English Court of Star Chamber.)  And, it may surprise you to learn that your right to a jury trial - even under the Seventh Amendment -  is not absolute.


What jury in what case has ever been fined, accused, jailed, or otherwise prosecuted for nullification?

It is an empty threat.  Neither you nor any judge can go there because it would mean the end of the jury system.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So you agree with the concept of total war? If we go to war, murder, rape and genocide are fair game?


I'm not some dickless pretend veteran. I pushed the submarines around that carried the weapons of total war.

What's your point? That it's awful to kill them retail, after draining the husks of vital intelligence but it's okay to barbeque their entire nation wholesale because some idiots were so squeamish they kept the people tasked with defending them from getting the information from our enemies in a timely and effective manner?

I have no use for people that weak.

There was some fool posting that we didn't need a large army, we had nuclear weapons.  His desire was to leave the US with NO OPTION but the nuclear option, right off the bat.   Can it get more ignorant than that?  Yes, when people treat those with a religious jihad to murder as many Americans as they can as if they were common criminals and not warriors in an asymmetric war intending to use our own (your own) weaknesses against us whenever they can.

We are supposed to treat THOSE kinds of people as disposable units, to be discarded in a safe manner when we are done using them.

----------


## freyasman

> I am a veteran; but it changes nothing.  Our boyfriend, here, was just so MORTIFIED at what was being done - justht YOU try it, thumtime!
> 
> I have done as bad and worse; and so have you.  I just stated my military service as WHERE I did worse - something all veterans can relate to.
> 
> Well, our acrobat, here, had to play "Can You Top This."  I was describing my experience in terms most could relate to.  HE was using the "appeal to authority" fallacy - he's a career military hero (not) so don't I dare be doubting his word!
> 
> I have two words to answer that; and those words are not "Merry Christmas."
> 
> I don't CARE whether he, or you, or anyone believes my time in the service.  It changes nothing of our tangent, to wit:  Waterboarding is NOT torture!


Yes, it is.

----------


## freyasman

> "Infantry"...those are the ones wearing the diapers, aren't they?


No, we were just the ones doing the work. The "cool guys" like SF, Ranger Battalions, CAG, and other Spec-Ops get all the kudos, the regular line infantry just gets all the shit work. It is what it is...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm not some dickless pretend veteran.


So you say.

I think anyone who has so much hate and is so willing to give up the high moral standards upon which our nation is based is compensating for something.  Maybe not dicklessness, but something.

----------

sotmfs (11-09-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Killing soldiers is not murder.


So that guy that shot the soldier in Ottawa and the two that beheaded the soldier in England did not commit murder... or is it just when the state kills others it's not murder to you?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Is there any particular reason all of you people can't figure out that WAR is not a LEGAL matter?  The two topics are not related, the functions of the police and military are different, and for some reason EVERYONE that brings up this bogus "if the police blahblahblah..." argument want the terrorists to win the conflict.  Because the US is so eeeevilllle!


Police and military are above the law... since they work for the state, which is itself above the law. Police and military have the authority to violate the rights of others, is that what you're trying to claim? So, to you, the state has an exemption from the moral laws that civilians take for granted in all other areas of life and is above the moral standards we apply to ourselves.

Further evidence of your statism.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Police and military are above the law... since they work for the state, which is itself above the law.


Incorrect, but I can see why Anarchists want it to appear that way.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So that guy that shot the soldier in Ottawa and the two that beheaded the soldier in England did not commit murder... or is it just when the state kills others it's not murder to you?


Killing soldiers in a theatre of WAR is not murder.

Killing your fellow soldier IS gonna be actionable; in the American Army you'd be court-martialed under the UCMJ.  In most other armies you'd just be shot immediately.

A civilian killing another is going to be dealt with under his government's criminal code.  So if a soldier is in Ottawa and is killed, and no, there is no war there...it will be actionable under Canadian Law.  American Law if it happens within an American military unit, on their embassy or their military encampment.

Do you have any other intentional misunderstanding you would like to vent?

----------


## usfan

> Incorrect, but I can see why Anarchists want it to appear that way.


What basis do anarchists have for ANY law?     :Dontknow: 

It does not come from god, or the collective, or any power structure, just an asserted platitude with no way of making it real.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What basis do anarchists have for ANY law?    
> 
> It does not come from god, or the collective, or any power structure, just an asserted platitude with no way of making it real.


My experience with online anarchists is that they want to demonize "the State" and all forms of government in order to make it appear anarchy is a preferred form of existence.   

There's a reason why most anarchists are young atheists.    They hate anyone telling them anything.  Most grow out of it, but some do not.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Incorrect, but I can see why Anarchists want it to appear that way.


I'm 100% correct. If a civilian were to act as the police, or as the state in general, do, they would be arrested. The state exists through the initiation of force on others... if it didn't, it wouldn't be a state.

Logic is not your forte.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Killing soldiers in a theatre of WAR is not murder.
> 
> Killing your fellow soldier IS gonna be actionable; in the American Army you'd be court-martialed under the UCMJ.  In most other armies you'd just be shot immediately.
> 
> A civilian killing another is going to be dealt with under his government's criminal code.  So if a soldier is in Ottawa and is killed, and no, there is no war there...it will be actionable under Canadian Law.  American Law if it happens within an American military unit, on their embassy or their military encampment.
> 
> Do you have any other intentional misunderstanding you would like to vent?


War is mass murder.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Logic is not your forte.


But simple-minded insults are yours.  

Believe as you wish.  If you're smart, you'll eventually grow out of it.  If you are not or have some lacking in character, you'll just grow old and bitter.  Good Luck.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> War is mass murder.


No it is NOT.

"Murder" is, itself a legal term.  War is a state where law has broken down; where it comes down to kill-or-be-killed.

Killing is not always murder; and anyone with a trace of common sense would realize that.

If you want to shock people by condemning war as "murder" you're welcome to try.  But refusing to fight when challenged is acquiescence - a brief precursor to enslavement.

----------

usfan (11-11-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> But simple-minded insults are yours.  
> 
> Believe as you wish.  If you're smart, you'll eventually grow out of it.  If you are not or have some lacking in character, you'll just grow old and bitter.  Good Luck.


Lol, I'm just stating facts... for which you obviously have no logical or coherent response.




> No it is NOT.
> 
> "Murder" is, itself a legal term.  War is a state where law has broken down; where it comes down to kill-or-be-killed.
> 
> Killing is not always murder; and anyone with a trace of common sense would realize that.
> 
> If you want to shock people by condemning war as "murder" you're welcome to try.  But refusing to fight when challenged is acquiescence - a brief precursor to enslavement.


War is, by definition, declared hostilities between states. Killing for the state is indeed murder. There have only been two wars in the history of the US which could be justified... the one in 1776, when the colonies seceded from Great Britain and Great Britain invaded... and the other in 1861, when the Southern states seceded and the North invaded. Both were defensive actions against an aggressor that initiated conflict.

The killing of human beings for the advancement of political agendas, or for the interests of the politically connected, by state military forces is murder. You can try to sugar coat it to justify your lust for blood but the fact remains.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Lol, I'm just stating facts...


Stating logic is not my forte isn't a fact, it's an opinion.  The fact you don't know the difference is telling.

----------

usfan (11-11-2014)

----------


## usfan

I love it how the superhero anarchists fly through cyberspace ridding the world of statistism everywhere!

----------


## hoytmonger

> Stating logic is not my forte isn't a fact, it's an opinion.  The fact you don't know the difference is telling.


Your illogical statements are all the facts I need to have proven my point... along with the fact that you've attempted to change the subject from an argument you've already lost to one of juvenile ridicule, further indicate that logic is not your forte.

You've yet to make a logical argument to prove your assertion that the police and the state don't consider themselves to be above the law. Likely you can't, so you have to change the subject... understood.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (11-11-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You've yet to make a logical argument to prove your assertion that the police and the state don't consider themselves to be above the law. Likely you can't, so you have to change the subject... understood.


Obviously no one is above the law as shown by police officers being disciplined, dismissed and even imprisoned for misconduct.  The same goes for politicians.  The system isn't perfect, but your statement that they are above the law and can do as they please is either both juvenile and naive or a deliberate lie.  Which is it? 

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...mpted-cover-up_A St. Petersburg police officer was fired this week after a review board said he used excessive force during a DUI arrest.

_http://www.wmur.com/news/seabrook-of...fired/27110034
_SEABROOK, N.H. —Two Seabrook police officers shown in a video roughing up a prisoner have been fired, town officials announced Wednesday.

_http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/O...1.html?ref=911
_The Omaha Police Department has concluded an internal investigation of a case that began with a rough arrest in a chaotic confrontation last March. A total of six officers have been relieved of duty.

_

----------

johnson (11-12-2014)

----------


## Canadianeye

Guns are not going away. It is as simple as that. It is quite literally, impossible. So, given that understanding of the truth of the situation, why ideologues (who chomp so hard at the bit in the futile attempt to rid societies of guns, country wise and globally), strive so hard in the pursuit, is beyond me.

If I can't defend myself against those who would harm me or my family because the government has disarmed me...then I am only in a lottery of sorts, at the whim of an armed criminal who will decide my fate, and my families fate.

The police will take notes of the rape, murder or aggravated assault, and, if arrests are ever made, the judicial system is weighted down to treating the criminals in an ever increasing light fashion.

No thanks. Don't want to play that game. Go after me and mine, centre mass.

----------

freyasman (11-12-2014),Victory (11-12-2014)

----------


## TrueMan

America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. And we can't deny it.

----------

johnson (11-12-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. And we can't deny it.


Disagreed on the first part but agreed on the second part.   The anti-gun Left is obsessed with banning all guns and/or depriving innocent, law-biding Americans the right to firearms.  What they should be doing is figuring out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill without harassing the innocent at the same time.

----------


## johnson

> Disagreed on the first part but agreed on the second part.   The anti-gun Left is obsessed with banning all guns and/or depriving innocent, law-biding Americans the right to firearms.  What they should be doing is figuring out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill without harassing the innocent at the same time.


Max, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps.  By limiting the availability of high capacity firearms the damage can hopefully be minimized.

----------


## freyasman

> America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. And we can't deny it.


Oh horseshit... there are over 100 million gun owners in America and they own at least 300 million guns. There are only about 10-11 thousand murders with firearms in this country every year, and about 75% of those are gang/ drug related. Another 10% are the result of fucking the wrong person. Do some math; this ain't that big a deal....

----------


## Hansel

> I love it how the superhero anarchists fly through cyberspace ridding the world of statistism everywhere!


That guy reminds me of Putin.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. And we can't deny it.


Yes we can.

Remove gun-owners who bought their guns illegally...that is, street thugs...and the gun-owning community is MORE law-abiding than the average citizen.  Nor are weapons owned by law-abiding Americans likely to be misused.  Oh, it happens...people kill pedestrians with cars, too, occasionally.  That is not a rational argument to ban personal automobiles.

When the occasional criminally-negligent act occurs...punish the offender.  Disarming the VAST MAJORITY of law-abiding owners is irrational and bespeaks of the political agenda behind this.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Max, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps.  By limiting the availability of high capacity firearms the damage can hopefully be minimized.


By that logic, we should ban private automobiles because, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps and drives over a group of school kids.   By banning all automobiles or mandating that everyone may only drive Smart cars, the damage can be minimized.

----------


## Hansel

> By that logic, we should ban private automobiles because, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps and drives over a group of school kids.   By banning all automobiles or mandating that everyone may only drive Smart cars, the damage can be minimized.


Max, firearms are designed to maim and to  kill where vehicles are not intended for those purposes. Aside from that I see your point.  There are plenty of nuts behind
the wheels these days, what with the road rage incidents.

----------


## Victory

> America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. And we can't deny it.


I completely deny it because I deny bullshit and call it out.

America has too few gun owners.  You want to see crime of all stripes in the worst areas plummet?  Turn everyone in that area into a gun owner.  Watch crime hit the basement.

http://armedcitizenproject.org/

----------

usfan (11-12-2014)

----------


## Victory

> By that logic, we should ban private automobiles because, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps and drives over a group of school kids.   By banning all automobiles or mandating that everyone may only drive Smart cars, the damage can be minimized.


You don't NEEEED a Ford F350 pickup truck.  Nobody NEEEEDS that kind of fire--I mean--*horse*power.  Only construction guys should be allowed to drive 'em.

A smart car with a Hello Kitty on the side is all anyone needs for transportation.

----------


## Victory

> Max, at a point in time one can be lawful and sane, and then wham, he snaps.  By limiting the availability of high capacity firearms the damage can hopefully be minimized.


Do you vote?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You don't NEEEED a Ford F350 pickup truck.  Nobody NEEEEDS that kind of fire--I mean--*horse*power.  Only construction guys should be allowed to drive 'em.
> 
> A smart car with a Hello Kitty on the side is all anyone needs for transportation.


Don't forget the bubble wrap!  We want everyone to be safe!

----------

usfan (11-12-2014),Victory (11-13-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Obviously no one is above the law as shown by police officers being disciplined, dismissed and even imprisoned for misconduct.  The same goes for politicians.  The system isn't perfect, but your statement that they are above the law and can do as they please is either both juvenile and naive or a deliberate lie.  Which is it? 
> 
> http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...mpted-cover-up_A St. Petersburg police officer was fired this week after a review board said he used excessive force during a DUI arrest.
> 
> _http://www.wmur.com/news/seabrook-of...fired/27110034
> _SEABROOK, N.H. Two Seabrook police officers shown in a video roughing up a prisoner have been fired, town officials announced Wednesday.
> 
> _http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/O...1.html?ref=911
> _The Omaha Police Department has concluded an internal investigation of a case that began with a rough arrest in a chaotic confrontation last March. A total of six officers have been relieved of duty.
> ...


All of the cases you've presented have further proven my point. 

What would have happened if a civilian had acted as the police did in those cases? They'd have been arrested and thrown in jail to await trial.

You're incapable of understanding even basic logic or common sense.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> All of the cases you've presented have further proven my point.


LOL. 

How old are you, really?  22ish?

----------


## hoytmonger

> LOL. 
> 
> How old are you, really?  22ish?


Trying to change the subject... again. 

What _would_ happen to a civilian if they'd acted as the police did in the 'evidence' you posted? Would they simply lose their jobs?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Trying to change the subject... again.


You don't have to answer the age question.  It's pretty obvious what it would be.  

What does your post have to do with the OP again?

----------


## hoytmonger

> You don't have to answer the age question.  It's pretty obvious what it would be.  
> 
> What does your post have to do with the OP again?


I'm replying to your post... that would seem obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm replying to your post... that would seem obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense.


LOL.  Thanks for the insults.  Obviously it's all you have.  Since there is nothing else to discuss, a little humor:

"Anarchist Joke" is redundant.

What’s the difference between a socialist and an anarchist? A job.


How do you starve an anarchist? Hide their foodstamps.


How many anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb? None. When the lights go out they’ll call their parents and fly home.


What do you call an anarchist over the age of thirty who’s not afraid of being arrested? A communist.


What do you call it when an anarchists pulls clothes out of a garbage in the fall, wears them constantly throughout winter and then throws them on the ground in spring? A really really free market.

----------


## hoytmonger

> LOL.  Thanks for the insults.  Obviously it's all you have.  Since there is nothing else to discuss, a little humor:
> 
> "Anarchist Joke" is redundant.
> 
> What’s the difference between a socialist and an anarchist? A job.
> 
> 
> How do you starve an anarchist? Hide their foodstamps.
> 
> ...


You've again proven your inability to form an intelligent, logical response to a simple question.

I've simply stated facts, it's you that resorts to juvenile attempts to ridicule.

----------


## usfan

> All of the cases you've presented have further proven my point. 
> What would have happened if a civilian had acted as the police did in those cases? They'd have been arrested and thrown in jail to await trial.
> You're incapable of understanding even basic logic or common sense.


If a civilian acted in self defense, no he would not be 'thrown in jail'.  If the police take actions that are 'above the law', they have consequences.  Many cops are in jail for breaking the law, & many more have been fired.  But the corruption of cops is not the topic here, neither are the failing of justice in a society.

BTW, since you want to hijack every thread to anarchy, i posted this reply in an anarchy topical thread.  Did you have time to peruse it's points?  It is unemotional, logical, & fairly straightforward, if you'd like to take a shot at a rebuttal..    :Dontknow: 




> Anarchy is not the solution.  It is the problem.  Since the dawn of man, human beings have strived with each other for control.. they want resources, turf, & stuff.  Some produce their own, others try to take what others have produced.  Strong men could defend their stuff, or take someone else's stuff.  But weaker people *together* can defeat the solitary strong man.  So people banded together in family units, tribes, regional alliances, and built castles & defensive positions to defend from other bands of family units, tribes, or gangs.  *This is 'government' at its most basic form*.  The very reason to gather together into gangs, tribes, states, coalitions, or alliances was to either protect FROM thieves & plunderers, or to BE better thieves & plunderers.
> 
> The problem is lawlessness.  Other gangs/tribes/states do not submit to your laws, so only power will deter them.  Anarchy attempts to solve the problem WITH the problem.
> 
> In its most basic form, a state is no different than a tribe or gang.  Some one or ones take or are given the leadership role, & they lead the charge to defend or attack other tribe/gang/state groups.  The bigger & more powerful & better organized win the conflicts, so man is constantly trying to improve his organization, technology, & numbers so his tribe/gang/state can win.  This is true in EVERY collective action, whether they be family units, crime gangs, corporations, or nation/states.
> 
> If a tribe/gang/state loses its leadership or organization, a vacuum is created & someone tries to take over or assimilate the stragglers.  They want the stuff, resources, turf, & people of the gang in disarray.  The surrounding people NEVER let them live in peace if they are disorganized & lack deterrence.
> 
> It is a delusion to think that the very condition we are trying to protect ourselves from should be pursued as a solution to large scale human interaction.  Throwing away our tribe/gang/state's organization & power only leaves us vulnerable to other's aggressions.
> ...

----------


## hoytmonger

> If a civilian acted in self defense, no he would not be 'thrown in jail'.  If the police take actions that are 'above the law', they have consequences.  Many cops are in jail for breaking the law, & many more have been fired.  But the corruption of cops is not the topic here, neither are the failing of justice in a society.
> 
> BTW, since you want to hijack every thread to anarchy, i posted this reply in an anarchy topical thread.  Did you have time to peruse it's points?  It is unemotional, logical, & fairly straightforward, if you'd like to take a shot at a rebuttal..


I didn't hijack the thread... another one of your neoconservative brethren did.

Did the police that executed Mirriam Carey get thrown in jail? No, they received a standing ovation from Congress and were hailed as heroes. Why is it that police that fired at an unarmed, mentally disturbed man standing in traffic in NYC, missed and instead hit passersby, were able to charge the mentally disturbed man with assaulting those passersby that the police shot? I can list hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases. You seem to think that because police wear a badge, they somehow possess extra rights that civilians do not. Police, and the state in general, infringe on the rights of the civilian population as way to make a living. 

Your added post which you claim to be logical is, in fact, not. It exemplifies a basic lack of the knowledge, or rather the basic state indoctrination, of the history of human society.

----------


## usfan

> I didn't hijack the thread... another one of your neoconservative brethren did.
> 
> Did the police that executed Mirriam Carey get thrown in jail? No, they received a standing ovation from Congress and were hailed as heroes. Why is it that police that fired at an unarmed, mentally disturbed man standing in traffic in NYC, missed and instead hit passersby, were able to charge the mentally disturbed man with assaulting those passersby that the police shot? I can list hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases. You seem to think that because police wear a badge, they somehow possess extra rights that civilians do not. Police, and the state in general, infringe on the rights of the civilian population as way to make a living. 
> 
> Your added post which you claim to be logical is, in fact, not. It exemplifies a basic lack of the knowledge, or rather the basic state indoctrination, of the history of human society.


see, that's all you have.. handwaving dismissals.  You don't address any points, or rebut any arguments, just dismiss everything by assertion.  This is not logic.  This is not a debate, or rebuttal.  This is illogical, ideology by assertion.

Prove it.  Rebut a point.  SHOW where my summary of history of human society displays a 'basic lack of knowledge'.

----------


## hoytmonger

> see, that's all you have.. handwaving dismissals.  You don't address any points, or rebut any arguments, just dismiss everything by assertion.  This is not logic.  This is not a debate, or rebuttal.  This is illogical, ideology by assertion.
> 
> Prove it.  Rebut a point.  SHOW where my summary of history of human society displays a 'basic lack of knowledge'.


Tribes and clans are in no way representative of government. Laws are not predicated on the existence of a state. Conflict is expensive, therefore the majority of human society avoids it. 

You advocate for a collective, liberty belongs to the individual. You are a statist.

----------


## Victory

> Don't forget the bubble wrap!  We want everyone to be safe!

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-13-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> *Tribes and clans are in no way representative of government.* Laws are not predicated on the existence of a state. Conflict is expensive, therefore the majority of human society avoids it. 
> 
> You advocate for a collective, liberty belongs to the individual. You are a statist.


Of course they are.  They're a primitive form of government...government by strongman.  You do what the chief says.  If you refuse, the other braves take you behind the trees, and you disappear.  Or the shaman learns the hunt was bad because there is an evil spirit in the midst, and that evil spirit is YOU.

Tribalism is rule by man, by chief or strongman instead of Rule of Law.  Rule by chief or strongman, is capricious and fraught with danger...which is why the Enlightenment philosophers sought a more equitable way.

To reject what thousands of years of human experience has learned...is NOT progress.

----------

usfan (11-14-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Of course they are.  They're a primitive form of government...government by strongman.  You do what the chief says.  If you refuse, the other braves take you behind the trees, and you disappear.  Or the shaman learns the hunt was bad because there is an evil spirit in the midst, and that evil spirit is YOU.
> 
> Tribalism is rule by man, by chief or strongman instead of Rule of Law.  Rule by chief or strongman, is capricious and fraught with danger...which is why the Enlightenment philosophers sought a more equitable way.
> 
> To reject what thousands of years of human experience has learned...is NOT progress.


No, they're not. What evidence do have to suggest they do... except your baseless assertions? Tribes and clans are voluntary associations, governments exist through the initiation of force.

----------


## Figaro

Guns are not toys. Guns can be made from tubes and strange powders. Maybe it is foolish to have any debates on whether guns should be controlled because it opens up a hole in the people's defense against a tyrannical administration. When we quit talking about guns is when we can do good

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No, they're not. What evidence do have to suggest they do... except your baseless assertions? Tribes and clans are voluntary associations, governments exist through the initiation of force.


All of human history is my evidence.  Apparently you are too young to even have taken any classes in anthropology.

If you believe the childish myths of the Noble Redman...I have nothing to say.  I cannot perceive it for you.  And space doesn't allow a lecture on ANTR101.

----------


## hoytmonger

> All of human history is my evidence.  Apparently you are too young to even have taken any classes in anthropology.
> 
> If you believe the childish myths of the Noble Redman...I have nothing to say.  I cannot perceive it for you.  And space doesn't allow a lecture on ANTR101.


No, I studied, and still study, praxeology and epistemology. And since 'all of human history' is your alleged evidence... you shouldn't find it all that hard to come up with some specific examples.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No, I studied, and still study, praxeology and epistemology. And since 'all of human history' is your alleged evidence... you shouldn't find it all that hard to come up with some specific examples.


Since I don't know any tribal groups...living in civilization...I have to speak in generalities.

I don't have any chieftains on speedial.  I don't know of any Yoob Toob videos of tribal life where the camera crew didn't influence behaviors...which is always the case when outsiders are in and/or cameras about.

This is accepted, commonly-known FACT.  I am not going to waste time trying to prove the sun will rise tomorrow, to stubborn, deluded, kids (who I suspect are chronic pot users).  There is no POINT.

You live your fantasy if you like.  YOU have failed, EVERY discussion, to prove civilization can exist without government.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Since I don't know any tribal groups...living in civilization...I have to speak in generalities.
> 
> I don't have any chieftains on speedial.  I don't know of any Yoob Toob videos of tribal life where the camera crew didn't influence behaviors...which is always the case when outsiders are in and/or cameras about.
> 
> This is accepted, commonly-known FACT.  I am not going to waste time trying to prove the sun will rise tomorrow, to stubborn, deluded, kids (who I suspect are chronic pot users).  There is no POINT.
> 
> You live your fantasy if you like.  YOU have failed, EVERY discussion, to prove civilization can exist without government.


Sooo, with all of human history to choose from... you have no evidence for your baseless assertions... understood.

Civilization has existed without government for hundreds of years... even a millennium... in fact there's a thread dedicated to one such civilization on this board...

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...teless-Ireland

----------


## Victory

> Guns are not toys.


Thank you.  It's about time somebody said that.  All this time I thought we were talking about super soakers.  I'll have to re-read the entire thread now.




> Guns can be made from tubes and strange powders.






Huh?  Charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate are not very strange.  Been around for centuries.  Heck, they're pretty elemental.  Been around for millions of years.  Low tech.  Found in dirt and urine basically.




> Maybe it is foolish to have any debates on whether guns should be controlled because it opens up a hole in the people's defense against a tyrannical administration.


'Kay.  I think I understand you.  I've always felt it was a no-brainer.  The debate was settled before 1791.  "Shall not be infringed," was the conclusion of that debate.




> When we quit talking about guns is when we can do good.


Eh. . .so long as you mean "gun control" not "guns."  I love talking about guns and will continue to exercise my 2nd and 1st Amendment rights about them.  We can do immense good when we embrace a healthy gun culture instead of the cultural junk food poison vomited out from Hollywood.  Look at the women in this video.  They all say, "I was scared at first" and then follow up with "I'm ready to do it again!" or words to that effect.  They are not the only people in America who feel like that.  In fact, tens of MILLIONS of Americans stay away from guns because "I was scared at first."  They just need the proper, non-Hollywood introduction to guns and those same millions will say, "I'm ready to do it again!"

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Sooo, with all of human history to choose from... you have no evidence for your baseless assertions... understood.
> 
> Civilization has existed without government for hundreds of years... even a millennium... in fact there's a thread dedicated to one such civilization on this board...
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...teless-Ireland


No they have not.

That is fantasy.

And because YOU lack the power of observation and deductive reasoning, you are unable to understand why tribalism doesn't work...not even very well for bushmen.

And how unworkable it is for a modern industrial civilization.

----------


## hoytmonger

> No they have not.
> 
> That is fantasy.
> 
> And because YOU lack the power of observation and deductive reasoning, you are unable to understand why tribalism doesn't work...not even very well for bushmen.
> 
> And how unworkable it is for a modern industrial civilization.


Right, historical evidence is pure fantasy... because you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that the state isn't necessary for human civilization to exist.

The indoctrination is strong in you.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Right, historical evidence is pure fantasy... because you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that the state isn't necessary for human civilization to exist.
> 
> The indoctrination is strong in you.


What's the difference between an anarchist and a socialist?  A job.  

Name a civilization larger than a small tribe that doesn't have rules and leaders.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What's the difference between an anarchist and a socialist?  A job.  
> 
> Name a civilization larger than a small tribe that doesn't have rules and leaders.


If you have three people interacting or doing something...you have a leader.

Think back.  To any emergency or unplanned problem or situation...accident while on a fishing trip; or group of soldiers cut off; or someone on the street badly hurt.  The leader emerges and starts directing things.

It's human nature; and MORE of anarchists' fantasies is that that is somehow different from an organized government.  It is, but not in the way they imagine.  A group cut off or dependent on one leader for many days or weeks...the leader's word is law.  Whereas in organized societies governed by Rule of Law, there are basic protections - lines the leader may not step over.

Interesting that the anarchists, who claim oppression, want to destroy the very system that protects individuals from a strongman-leader's capriciousness.

----------

usfan (11-13-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> If you have three people interacting or doing something...you have a leader.
> 
> Think back.  To any emergency or unplanned problem or situation...accident while on a fishing trip; or group of soldiers cut off; or someone on the street badly hurt.  The leader emerges and starts directing things.
> 
> It's human nature; and MORE of anarchists' fantasies is that that is somehow different from an organized government.  It is, but not in the way they imagine.  A group cut off or dependent on one leader for many days or weeks...the leader's word is law.  Whereas in organized societies governed by Rule of Law, there are basic protections - lines the leader may not step over.
> 
> Interesting that the anarchists, who claim oppression, want to destroy the very system that protects individuals from a strongman-leader's capriciousness.


Your premises don't support your conclusions.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Your premises don't support your conclusions.


...said the guy who thinks anarchy is workable.

I submit there is something WRONG with your reasoning skills...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Your premises don't support your conclusions.


And you still haven't been able to identify any groups larger than a tribe that don't have rules or leaders.

----------


## hoytmonger

> ...said the guy who thinks anarchy is workable.
> 
> I submit there is something WRONG with your reasoning skills...


My reasoning skills are just fine. Yours, on the other hand, require some work. To actually believe that given any group of people, one would emerge as 'leader' and their word would be 'LAW' is idiotic.




> And you still haven't been able to identify any groups larger than a tribe that don't have rules or leaders.


You've made a strawman argument... it doesn't warrant a response.

----------


## usfan

> Tribes and clans are in no way representative of government. Laws are not predicated on the existence of a state. Conflict is expensive, therefore the majority of human society avoids it. 
> You advocate for a collective, liberty belongs to the individual. You are a statist.





> No, they're not. What evidence do have to suggest they do... except your baseless assertions? Tribes and clans are voluntary associations, governments exist through the initiation of force.





> Right, historical evidence is pure fantasy... because you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that the state isn't necessary for human civilization to exist.
> The indoctrination is strong in you.


see, that's all you have.. handwaving dismissals. You don't address any points, or rebut any arguments, just dismiss everything by assertion. This is not logic. This is not a debate, or rebuttal. This is illogical dogma.. ideology by assertion.

Hide behind ad hominems.  Call everyone a statist or neocon.  See the world in black & white.  I don't care.  But don't pretend to be a logical debater.  You are not.  If you want a debate, i've given it to you.  I & many others have provided reason, history, logic, & evidence for WHY your ideals do not & cannot work.  All you can do is dismiss them with assertions & insults, & repeat your fantasy mantras.  It is getting very old, repetitive, & boring.  Your 'single issue' obsession is cute & shocking, as you intend it, but after a while, it loses its charm.  Try actually defending your position, & rebutting another's.  Ad hominem & assertions are for irrational losers.

----------


## RePHormed

> Uniformed cops have no choice. (the uniform kinda gives them away)
> When they have a choice they don't advertise.


They finally came to their senses and kicked your hairy ass out. Good.

----------


## johnson

> see, that's all you have.. handwaving dismissals. You don't address any points, or rebut any arguments, just dismiss everything by assertion. This is not logic. This is not a debate, or rebuttal. This is illogical dogma.. ideology by assertion.
> 
> Hide behind ad hominems.  Call everyone a statist or neocon.  See the world in black & white.  I don't care.  But don't pretend to be a logical debater.  You are not.  If you want a debate, i've given it to you.  I & many others have provided reason, history, logic, & evidence for WHY your ideals do not & cannot work.  All you can do is dismiss them with assertions & insults, & repeat your fantasy mantras.  It is getting very old, repetitive, & boring.  Your 'single issue' obsession is cute & shocking, as you intend it, but after a while, it loses its charm.  Try actually defending your positions, & rebutting another's.  Ad hominem & assertions are for irrational losers.


Not everyone wants to engage in an academic circle jerk (aka debate).  I sure don't but I love to pull the rug out from under punk assed prima donnas.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You've made a strawman argument... it doesn't warrant a response.


Disagreed, but I completely understand why you can't come up with any working examples in the past or present......Anarchism doesn't work.

It's not the idea, it's the people.   Human beings, at least at this stage of our development, don't allow things like anarchism and socialism to work.

----------


## hoytmonger

> see, that's all you have.. handwaving dismissals. You don't address any points, or rebut any arguments, just dismiss everything by assertion. This is not logic. This is not a debate, or rebuttal. This is illogical dogma.. ideology by assertion.
> 
> Hide behind ad hominems.  Call everyone a statist or neocon.  See the world in black & white.  I don't care.  But don't pretend to be a logical debater.  You are not.  If you want a debate, i've given it to you.  I & many others have provided reason, history, logic, & evidence for WHY your ideals do not & cannot work.  All you can do is dismiss them with assertions & insults, & repeat your fantasy mantras.  It is getting very old, repetitive, & boring.  Your 'single issue' obsession is cute & shocking, as you intend it, but after a while, it loses its charm.  Try actually defending your position, & rebutting another's.  Ad hominem & assertions are for irrational losers.


You have never provided any logical or historical evidence of why anarchism wouldn't work... while I and others (Axiomatic in particular) have provided historical and logical evidence that it can and already has. 

Present a logical argument worth debating and I'll debate it... but you can't because you don't have one. You keep coming back with hypothetical scenarios of a dystopian existence without a state... with absolutely no basis in fact. All you have is rhetoric.

Debate the logical argument that the state exists only through the violation of the rights of others, and claims exemption from the moral laws civilians take for granted.

Debate the fact that the state doesn't provide any goods or services that couldn't be supplied more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.

Debate the logical argument that human society can indeed exist, and has, without the central direction of a state.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Disagreed, but I completely understand why you can't come up with any working examples in the past or present......Anarchism doesn't work.
> 
> It's not the idea, it's the people.   Human beings, at least at this stage of our development, don't allow things like anarchism and socialism to work.


Once again, you've provided a logical fallacy.

You don't even know what anarchism is... as evidenced by your previous post... yet you feel you can speak for all human beings on the subject.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You have never provided any logical or historical evidence of why anarchism wouldn't work...


You've never proven why we can't genetically modify everyone to shit gold and, thereby, solve the poverty problem.  Therefore, it must be a good idea by your logic.


When you grow up, you'll learn that if a person wants to change the status quo, it's up to them to prove why everyone else should change.  It's not up to everyone else to prove to you why they shouldn't have to change their lives for you.

----------


## Virgil Jones

I haven't read the thread, I am sorry, I noticed the title. I don't mean to intervene in that sense.

I am attending a class in the morning, enhanced concealed carry training, all day class

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Once again, you've provided a logical fallacy.
> 
> You don't even know what anarchism is... as evidenced by your previous post... yet you feel you can speak for all human beings on the subject.


I'm an expert on human psychology. It's part of my professional career to know about people, how they think and what they are capable of doing.

What do you do for a living @hoytmonger?  I'm assuming, of course, you aren't living with your parents, aren't a college student and that you can actually earn enough money to pay your Internet bill.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I'm an expert on human psychology. It's part of my professional career to know about people, how they think and what they are capable of doing.
> 
> What do you do for a living @hoytmonger?  I'm assuming, of course, you aren't living with your parents, aren't a college student and that you can actually earn enough money to pay your Internet bill.


If that's your profession... you're an abject failure at it.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You've never proven why we can't genetically modify everyone to shit gold and, thereby, solve the poverty problem.  Therefore, it must be a good idea by your logic.
> 
> 
> When you grow up, you'll learn that if a person wants to change the status quo, it's up to them to prove why everyone else should change.  It's not up to everyone else to prove to you why they shouldn't have to change their lives for you.


You seem to like taking parts of posts out of context and putting your own little spin on them... it does seem disingenuous though.

Probably due to your lack of intellect and inability to construct an argument based in reason.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If that's your profession... you're an abject failure at it.


LOL.  I'm guessing I make a helluva lot more money than you are.....and if you keep having the same attitude you have now, than you ever will.  

Also, regardless of money, I'm a success in my profession.  What have you succeeded at life thus far?

----------


## hoytmonger

> LOL.  I'm guessing I make a helluva lot more money than you are.....and if you keep having the same attitude you have now, than you ever will.  
> 
> Also, regardless of money, I'm a success in my profession.  What have you succeeded at life thus far?


Justin Bieber makes a lot more money than me... and he's a dumbass too.

Sooo, since you've been unable to provide any logical statements to support your illogical premises, I'll have to presume that the 'I make more money than you' argument is all you have.

You're pretty pathetic.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Justin Bieber makes a lot more money than me... and he's a dumbass too.


Yes, he's a dumbass, but he's more of a success in his business than you will ever be.

Again, what have you ever succeeded at doing?  Graduated HS?  Cooked your own dinner? 

I'm still waiting to debate why you think Anarchism works.  Your immature attitude that everyone has to prove you wrong is an example of you looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  Another reason why Anarchism will fail; all of the Anarchists are waiting for the vast majority of the population to prove them wrong.  It's going to be a long wait because the vast majority don't give a shit about you.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Since I don't know any tribal groups...living in civilization...I have to speak in generalities.
> 
> I don't have any chieftains on speedial. I don't know of any Yoob Toob videos of tribal life where the camera crew didn't influence behaviors...which is always the case when outsiders are in and/or cameras about.
> 
> This is accepted, commonly-known FACT. I am not going to waste time trying to prove the sun will rise tomorrow, to stubborn, deluded, kids (who I suspect are chronic pot users). There is no POINT.
> 
> You live your fantasy if you like. YOU have failed, EVERY discussion, to prove civilization can exist without government.


Street gangs are a form of tribal group, with laws and punishments, sometimes fatal.  Gangs are a form of local government.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Yes, he's a dumbass, but he's more of a success in his business than you will ever be.
> 
> Again, what have you ever succeeded at doing?  Graduated HS?  Cooked your own dinner? 
> 
> I'm still waiting to debate why you think Anarchism works.  Your immature attitude that everyone has to prove you wrong is an example of you looking through the wrong end of the telescope.  Another reason why Anarchism will fail; all of the Anarchists are waiting for the vast majority of the population to prove them wrong.  It's going to be a long wait because the vast majority don't give a shit about you.


I have an immature attitude? You're the one posting pictures with silly slogans and claiming that you make more money than me, as if that were an edifying statement. You don't even know what anarchism is.

Anarchism works because the free market works. A free market cannot exist within the structure of a state since the state necessarily exists through coercion. 

'Limited government' is a utopian dream which has never and can never exist.

There are no goods or services that the state provides which couldn't be provided more effectively and efficiently by the private sector... therefore the state is unnecessary and ultimately detrimental to human society.

I've stated all these logical, factual statements many times before and nobody can seem to be able to present a logical, factual debate to refute them.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Street gangs are a form of tribal group, with laws and punishments, sometimes fatal.  Gangs are a form of local government.


Street gangs are, by and large, criminal organizations. If you wish to compare them to the state as such, you have a point... but that's where the similarity ends.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I have an immature attitude?


Yes, because you repeatedly make claims which you not only refuse to back up with facts, but insult others for not proving you wrong.  Dude, that attitude belongs to High School Sophomores, not in adult conversation.

Anarchism doesn't work.  If it did, someone would be doing it.

----------


## usfan

> Not everyone wants to engage in an academic circle jerk (aka debate).  I sure don't but I love to pull the rug out from under punk assed prima donnas.


Of course.  Most people, i would say, do not want to systematically organize their thoughts & submit them in a logical manner.  Replies are disjointed, emotional, & filled with wit & whimsy.  That is the nature of forums.  But if someone is tossing around the words, 'logic', 'irrational', 'debate', & pretending to submit a rational argument, then there are logical conventions that should be followed.  To SAY one thing, then fall back on emotional appeals, ad hominems, & ridicule is old as the hills.  I am merely pointing that out.

----------


## usfan

> Name a civilization larger than a small tribe that doesn't have rules and leaders.





> If you have three people interacting or doing something...you have a leader.
> Interesting that the anarchists, who claim oppression, want to destroy the very system that protects individuals from a strongman-leader's capriciousness.


good points.  ANY collection of people ALWAYS organize or settle into a pecking order.. it is the nature of man.  Governance is just a large scale version of that.




> You have never provided any logical or historical evidence of why anarchism wouldn't work... while I and others (Axiomatic in particular) have provided historical and logical evidence that it can and already has.


This is quite backwards.  I have provided threads & posts in abundance showing historically, anthropologically, psychologically, & logically why anarchy does not, has not, & cannot work.  It is a fantasy and it is absurd that anyone could think it is a viable solution for human social interactions.  *It is taking the PROBLEM of human society, lawlessness & disorder, & making it the SOLUTION.*  It is the very reason humans have organized themselves socially.




> Present a logical argument worth debating and I'll debate it... but you can't because you don't have one. You keep coming back with hypothetical scenarios of a dystopian existence without a state... with absolutely no basis in fact. All you have is rhetoric.
> Debate the logical argument that the state exists only through the violation of the rights of others, and claims exemption from the moral laws civilians take for granted.
> Debate the fact that the state doesn't provide any goods or services that couldn't be supplied more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.
> Debate the logical argument that human society can indeed exist, and has, without the central direction of a state.


You have this bizarre notion that 'the state' is some higher entity, like god.  It exists apart from man or society.  It does not.  It is only an organized, extension of man.  Humans are the 'state'.  Those who by their own force, or the combined force of a group, or by the coalitions formed with other groups, take the power, are the state.  It does not matter if it is as small as a family group, or an extended family tribe, or a city, or a corporation, or a gang, or a regional authority, or a national central govt.  It is humans, organizing for the purpose of deterring lawlessness.. providing justice for themselves from aggressive people, foreign or domestic.

I have debated all the points you make.. in other threads i (and many others) have addressed all of them in great detail, & with great patience.  Do you just want repetition?  Or just another post to dismiss with a wave of your hand?  You will not rebut or address any of my points, or deal with the logic in them.
1. The 'state' does NOT exist 'only through the violation of the rights of others', & is not exempt from any laws.  Some humans are bullies, & if they gain power, they bully others.  But LAW trumps imperial edict, in a republic, so your point is clearly rebutted.  A citizen, even in a position of power, who defies the LAW, will face consequences.  Sometimes there are travesties of justice, but in most cases, corruption is caught & punished.  Cops are not above the law.
2. The 'state' does NOT provide goods & services... they only TAKE what others have made.  They are a drain on the society, to provide justice.. a necessary evil, it seems, as humans do not submit willingly to Law.
3. Humans have always organized into some system of order.. to provide justice for themselves.. defense of the tribe/city/gang/nation, & deterrence for internal lawlessness.  There is no 'central direction of a state', but only the rise & fall of various systems of organization.   That is all history is.. the record of the rise & fall of human governance.  Some work better than others.  Some are brutal & aggressive, & kill lots of people.  But all are merely reflections of the people.  The people are the ones enforcing & supporting any organization (state) taking place.

You should continue to debate this in threads topical to this subject, instead of hijacking every thread to your pet issue.

----------


## Hansel

> Yes, because you repeatedly make claims which you not only refuse to back up with facts, but insult others for not proving you wrong.  Dude, that attitude belongs to High School Sophomores, not in adult conversation.
> 
> Anarchism doesn't work.  If it did, someone would be doing it.


Anarchism is not realistic because when there is a group of civilized people there are leaders and followers.  To me an anarchist is a rebellious naïve
teenager who hasn't grown to adulthood.  Poor baby, the world just won't stop and wait for him to catch up.

Anarchists are parasites in that they eat the nectar of civilization but do nothing to foster it. IMO they are a waste of skin.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-15-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Yes, because you repeatedly make claims which you not only refuse to back up with facts, but insult others for not proving you wrong.  Dude, that attitude belongs to High School Sophomores, not in adult conversation.
> 
> Anarchism doesn't work.  If it did, someone would be doing it.


The claims I've made, you apparently cannot refute... or else you'd have made the attempt. So, again you post picture with silly slogans.

I was correct previously... you're pathetic.

----------


## hoytmonger

> good points.  ANY collection of people ALWAYS organize or settle into a pecking order.. it is the nature of man.  Governance is just a large scale version of that.
> 
> 
> This is quite backwards.  I have provided threads & posts in abundance showing historically, anthropologically, psychologically, & logically why anarchy does not, has not, & cannot work.  It is a fantasy and it is absurd that anyone could think it is a viable solution for human social interactions.  *It is taking the PROBLEM of human society, lawlessness & disorder, & making it the SOLUTION.*  It is the very reason humans have organized themselves socially.
> 
> 
> You have this bizarre notion that 'the state' is some higher entity, like god.  It exists apart from man or society.  It does not.  It is only an organized, extension of man.  Humans are the 'state'.  Those who by their own force, or the combined force of a group, or by the coalitions formed with other groups, take the power, are the state.  It does not matter if it is as small as a family group, or an extended family tribe, or a city, or a corporation, or a gang, or a regional authority, or a national central govt.  It is humans, organizing for the purpose of deterring lawlessness.. providing justice for themselves from aggressive people, foreign or domestic.
> 
> I have debated all the points you make.. in other threads i (and many others) have addressed all of them in great detail, & with great patience.  Do you just want repetition?  Or just another post to dismiss with a wave of your hand?  You will not rebut or address any of my points, or deal with the logic in them.
> ...


You're concept of the 'nature of man' is convoluted. Human society exists solely for economical reasons, not to establish some 'pecking order'. The establishment of trade and the division of labor to make life easier is the reason for human society.

The posts you provide do not provide any logical data... at most it's rhetoric. 

Humans are not the state. If that were true then the Jews in Nazi Germany had themselves murdered, since that was an elected government. You don't seem to know what the state is... maybe this would help...

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

1. The state _does_ exist through the violation of the rights of others... that's an irrefutable fact. What would be called theft if carried out by a private individual is taxation for the State. What would be called kidnapping and indentured servitude by private individuals is called the military draft by the state. what is called mass murder for civilians is called war by the state. In each case, the State gets away with moral enormities because the public has been conditioned to believe that the State is a law unto itself, and can’t be held to the same moral standards we apply to ourselves.

2. The goods and services provided by the state... aka. police and 'justice' would be better provided by the private sector... since the private sector outperforms the state in every useful way. Your statement that 'humans do not submit willingly to the law' may be true to the laws written by the state, since they mostly violate the natural rights possessed by all people. It's the written laws of men that are detrimental to human society and are unethical.

3. States fall due to the fact that they attempt to centrally control society. The US is a centrally controlled nation... and it's failing. Anarchism doesn't oppose a system of order... just the state. If you knew what anarchism was... which by definition means 'without a state'... you may be able to debate the concept


Also, I didn't hijack this thread... you and your neoconservative brethren did. I merely responded to your illogical statements.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Anarchism is not realistic because when there is a group of civilized people there are leaders and followers.  To me an anarchist is a rebellious naïve
> teenager who hasn't grown to adulthood.  Poor baby, the world just won't stop and wait for him to catch up.
> 
> Anarchists are parasites in that they eat the nectar of civilization but do nothing to foster it. IMO they are a waste of skin.


You must be one of the followers... since you're obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

----------


## johnson

> Of course.  Most people, i would say, do not want to systematically organize their thoughts & submit them in a logical manner.  Replies are disjointed, emotional, & filled with wit & whimsy.  That is the nature of forums.  But if someone is tossing around the words, 'logic', 'irrational', 'debate', & pretending to submit a rational argument, then there are logical conventions that should be followed.  To SAY one thing, then fall back on emotional appeals, ad hominems, & ridicule is old as the hills.  I am merely pointing that out.


There are several reasons why people come to forums and there are reasons they don't come for.  All I want is a congenial conversation about issues without having to play grab ass with armchair constitutionalists.

 What they get out of hiding behind the constipation beats hell out of me. It sure hasn't brought the right wing bigots anything of value. If enough people want the constitution to be changed then it can be amended. So much for scholarly history papers.  The world has changed since then so some of you children need to wake up to that fact.

----------


## usfan

> There are several reasons why people come to forums and there are reasons they don't come for.  All I want is a congenial conversation about issues without having to play grab ass with armchair constitutionalists.
> 
>  What they get out of hiding behind the constipation beats hell out of me. It sure hasn't brought the right wing bigots anything of value. If enough people want the constitution to be changed then it can be amended. So much for scholarly history papers.  The world has changed since then so some of you children need to wake up to that fact.


Of course.  And if enough people want to revolt, & set up a socialist nanny state, or a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or another constitutional republic, they can do that, too.  The world HAS changed, IS changing, & WILL change.  That much is certain.  What it will change TO is the question..

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Anarchism is not realistic because when there is a group of civilized people there are leaders and followers.  To me an anarchist is a rebellious naïve
> teenager who hasn't grown to adulthood.  Poor baby, the world just won't stop and wait for him to catch up.
> 
> Anarchists are parasites in that they eat the nectar of civilization but do nothing to foster it. IMO they are a waste of skin.


Anarchists, like many Liberals, are idealists.   While I think many have their heart in the right place, they are, indeed, naive.  Some are downright nasty where all they want to do is smash what they don't like and insult those with whom they disagree.

----------


## usfan

Away back in post #178, you said this:




> You're incorrect... as usual. The right to defend oneself is a natural right... the state doesn't grant rights. Because the laws of men prevent the natural right to defend oneself doesn't make it righteous. It just exemplifies the deleterious nature of the state.
> 
> *The laws of men... and the state that supports them... are detrimental to human society.* That is basic logic.


This is your second post in this thread, & already you are dripping anarchy.

By the time i get to the thread, we are up to post #1073.. where i make this brilliant observation:



> 1. The 'right' to keep & bear arms is like many other rights.. it is not absolute, but is mitigated by the collective, as other rights are. You cannot say limits to free speech destroys free speech. *That is anarchy logic, demanding absolute freedom in everything, & implying any limits are 'statist'. 
> *
> 2.Every one of the bill of rights has limits.. there is not total freedom of the press, or speech, or gun ownership, or any individual liberty. It is valid for the collective to place MINIMAL limits on individual freedoms, & those are usually driven by population density. The more we pile on each other, the more regulations we need. 
> 
> 3. the tricky balance is to preserve as much of the individual freedom as possible, while not infringing on the collective freedoms of others. 
> 
> 4. It's too hard to communicate without carriage returns & proper formatting, but i can expand on this when i get to a real computer, that knows what a carriage return is..


The last dozen pages or so have been exclusively about anarchy.. so much so that the primary participants, graham & devil, have ended their participation, driven, no doubt, to forum suicide by the distractions of the flood of off topic posting about anarchy.  They wanted to blast guns, not the right of man to make law.

Anyway, it's all for fun, & my topical answer to this thread is, 'Yes'.  Firearms DO empower people, so they can fight oppressive govts, or deter destructive anarchists, whichever of them try to bully the people.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Street gangs are, by and large, criminal organizations. If you wish to compare them to the state as such, you have a point... but that's where the similarity ends.


Your religious devotion is admirable...to someone.  Not to me.

You're wrong, your insistence and rejecting the essential definitions of basic words and your flat refusal to admit seeing anything but the surface presentation you desire is indicative of a hate-filled rigid mind utterly incapable of mature thought or civil discourse.

The classic definition of a waste of time.

You're either ignorant of all the myriad forms "government" takes, government being the primary invention of the human species, or you're assuming we're so stupid we're going to continue wasting time on your deliberately obtuse and intentionally ignorant arrogant blather.

I'm going to guess....no, I"m not, I'm going to leave my suspicions of the closeness of your familial relationship to King Ebola a private matter.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Anarchism is not realistic because when there is a group of civilized people there are leaders and followers.  To me an anarchist is a rebellious naïve
> teenager who hasn't grown to adulthood.  Poor baby, the world just won't stop and wait for him to catch up.
> 
> Anarchists are parasites in that they eat the nectar of civilization but do nothing to foster it. IMO they are a waste of skin.


Why did you include the word "civilized" in the above?

Where there are PEOPLE, either government or death ensues.  Anarchy is nothing more than a process of sorting out what the next government is going to be.  Anarchy is as permanent as a soap-bubble in an forest fire.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You have never provided any logical or historical evidence of why anarchism wouldn't work... .



This crap from you again?

Anarchy will not work because anarchy does not work.

Anarchy is merely a period of murder, rape, and looting that happens until the next government is formed.

Anarchy is not consistent with the human heritage and the human genome.

This is because people who aren't anarchists figure out, rapidly, that two or three of them can kill one anarchist, and those living the anarchy lifestyle are pruned back until they stop expressing their idiocy in the form of crime waves.

PERIOD.

----------

Rutabaga (11-20-2014)

----------


## timslash

Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!

----------

Hansel (11-20-2014)

----------


## Trinnity

It's natural for men (and women) to hunt. Do you know what happens when you live in the country and no one hunts deer? They proliferate and become a nuisance and even a danger. People need meat. Some families depend on wild game to supplement the high cost of groceries. It's wrong of the state to take hunting (especially on your own land) away from people; it's a natural right in a country founded on freedom and liberty.

Democrats gained majority in the house and senate back in 2006 and they've been  busy ever since over-spending, over-borrowing, suppressing the economy with fiscal recklessness and regulation, and tearing up society with  politically correct cultural warfare,  verbal and even a (amazing !!!) written race warfare driven by the liberal press and politicians. So I call bullshit on more govt restrictions and people who want to live that way.

----------


## usfan

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


Legal ways?  When has any tyranny been deposed 'legally?'  No, one of the clear messages of the founders of america is the right of the people to keep & bear arms, as a deterrence to govt tyranny.  It is not about hunting, or shooting clays.

BTW, every year there are soldiers who kill thousands of victims with firearms.. many of them children.

_"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  ~Thomas Jefferson

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. ~L. Neil Smith_

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


*
"A ‘liberal paradise’ would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities and only law enforcement personnel have guns. And, believe it or not, such a liberal utopia does indeed exist. ... It’s called prison."*

--Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

----------

usfan (11-20-2014)

----------


## freyasman

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


You're kidding, right?   :Lame:

----------


## timslash

> Legal ways? When has any tyranny been deposed 'legally?' No, one of the clear messages of the founders of america is the right of the people to keep & bear arms, as a deterrence to govt tyranny. It is not about hunting, or shooting clays.



Let's start with the fact, that the tyranny - is a relic of the past, now we only have "bad officials" and there is legal way to depose the person which do something harmful - impeachment! We sucessfully applied it to Johnson and Clinton and it seems like we will impeach our present commander soon. Weapons aren't necessary.





> BTW, every year there are soldiers who kill thousands of victims with firearms.. many of them children.



Here, i agree with you! Wars, local conflicts, all is the rotten part of our society. And it will be much better if war becomes a relic, like tyranny.

----------


## usfan

> Let's start with the fact, that the tyranny - is a relic of the past, now we only have "bad officials" and there is legal way to depose the person which do something harmful - impeachment! We sucessfully applied it to Johnson and Clinton and it seems like we will impeach our present commander soon. Weapons aren't necessary.
> Here, i agree with you! Wars, local conflicts, all is the rotten part of our society. And it will be much better if war becomes a relic, like tyranny.


I'm glad we agree about war.. & it would be wonderful if it were to become a relic of the past.  But that seems unlikely, as well as tyranny becoming a relic.  Those 2 are interrelated, & often go together.

I would like to believe that man is evolving, & that an age of peace & harmony is before us, or even possible.  But history is cold & unfeeling, & dashes our hopes & dreams with the reality of human nature.  My dream is to keep a part of human liberty alive.. to keep a system of self rule, citizen representatives, & a govt that secures the basic liberties of the people.  THAT system is under attack, & has been for decades (probably centuries).  Each generation has to decide how much governance & what ideology to live under.  They do that peaceably, if possible, or by revolution.  That is the way of man, & i see no reason to think it will be otherwise.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. ....


There's one vote for tyranny.  Anyone else think likewise?

----------


## QuaseMarco

> *Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else.* Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


Very bad idea. Disarm the public and mass slaughter of the population will follow. The USA is no exception. And as for as our vote!
 ---- Our vote is becoming more and more meaningless.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons.


Why?  The reason can't be:




> Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children.


because if you really think that then we have a whole file cabinet full of examples of things used in killing people from kitchen knives to cars and we're in no way going to deny private ownership of any of those things.  Let's not beat that dead horse again.  Give me something new and thoughtful.




> Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


And what if the law is too corrupt to allow that?  Then what do you do?

----------


## Figaro

> I'm glad we agree about war.. & it would be wonderful if it were to become a relic of the past.  But that seems unlikely, as well as tyranny becoming a relic.  Those 2 are interrelated, & often go together.
> 
> I would like to believe that man is evolving, & that an age of peace & harmony is before us, or even possible.  But history is cold & unfeeling, & dashes our hopes & dreams with the reality of human nature.  My dream is to keep a part of human liberty alive.. to keep a system of self rule, citizen representatives, & a govt that secures the basic liberties of the people.  THAT system is under attack, & has been for decades (probably centuries).  Each generation has to decide how much governance & what ideology to live under.  They do that peaceably, if possible, or by revolution.  That is the way of man, & i see no reason to think it will be otherwise.


America will cease to exist or will be changed greatly if war were to become a relic of the past. It's the foundation of our foreign policy and float to the economy. And not the direct war but intervention and involving...war is not a war if not bringing the money

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


HOW?

Tyranny is - by definition - despotic GOVERNMENT.

When the Constitution is discarded, the law that remains is the tyrant's word.

How do you "lawfully oppose" this?

----------

Rutabaga (11-20-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Let's start with the fact, that the tyranny - is a relic of the past,


Kim Jung Un never got the memo.

The current president hires member of the Mao Fan Club.  He didn't get the memo either.




> now we only have "bad officials" and there is legal way to depose the person which do something harmful - impeachment!


But if a president can grant amnesty instead of persuading congress to repeal naturalization laws, if he can ram through Obama care on lies that a majority of the citizens never bought, if he can use the IRS to punish groups of citizens on purely political grounds, and can drone American citizens with no judicial due process. . .don't you think he can do and block anything he wants?

What is tyranny if not that?

Is democide a relic of the past too?

----------

Rutabaga (11-20-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


well, thanks for the imput,,but,, i like things just as they are...and im happy that i like things as they are...

your glad,,,, im happy,,,its a win-win!

----------


## Sled Dog

> Well, i think, that only soldiers should have weapons. Nobody else. Every year we saw hundreds, thousands victims of firearms. Many of them, were children. Maybe somebody will say that i'm wrong, but it's my opinion and i'm glad that i have it. Wanna hunt? Okay, go to special territory and hunt. Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


In your mother country, the Soviet Union, only the soldiers had guns.   The USSR also had routine bloody purges, when they weren't stealing all the food in Ukraine to deliberately starve the people.

In another country you are ideologically aligned with, the people didn't have guns, and Mao murdered some 45,000,000 chinese with the greatest ease.

In a third country whose ideology you admire, Hitler could stuff people into cattle cars and take them to industrialized extermination centers.

YOUR ideology has endorsed and conducted the murder of 200,000,000 people in one century, at an average rate of 2,000,000 people a year, and you're complaining that the guns that keep you people from doing that in the United States is causing the death of a few people here and there?

Too bad for you.

----------

freyasman (11-21-2014),Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Let's start with the fact, that the tyranny - is a relic of the past,


That's not a fact, that's what we Americans call a lie.

Tyranny is the normal state of mankind, and only the guns in the hands of the people push it back.  Why else would King Ebola and his slaves want to steal everyone's guns?

----------

Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Anarchists, like many Liberals, are idealists. While I think many have their heart in the right place, they are, indeed, naive. Some are downright nasty where all they want to do is smash what they don't like and insult those with whom they disagree.


No, they aren't.  Anarchists are either ignorant fools or culpable criminals.   There's no middle option.

----------


## timslash

> In your mother country, the Soviet Union, only the soldiers had guns.   The USSR also had routine bloody purges, when they weren't stealing all the food in Ukraine to deliberately starve the people.
> 
> In another country you are ideologically aligned with, the people didn't have guns, and Mao murdered some 45,000,000 chinese with the greatest ease.
> 
> In a third country whose ideology you admire, Hitler could stuff people into cattle cars and take them to industrialized extermination centers.
> 
> YOUR ideology has endorsed and conducted the murder of 200,000,000 people in one century, at an average rate of 2,000,000 people a year, and you're complaining that the guns that keep you people from doing that in the United States is causing the death of a few people here and there?
> 
> Too bad for you.


Well, i don't think that if people have guns, they can resist specially trained soldiers. Really, if government want to kill somebody, they will do that easily and 9mm which you bought someday, will not help you. 
Weapons can help you to defend your house from burglars, but from someone's more powerful - no!

----------


## squidward

> Let's start with the fact, that the tyranny - is a relic of the past,


fact and your opinion are not synonymous, oddly.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well, i don't think that if people have guns, they can resist specially trained soldiers......


That's a common, but false, meme often spouted by the anti-gun Left.  What it fails to recognize is that there are ten times as many vets as active and reserve military personnel.  All of these veterans have the same training and, often, more experience than those currently in uniform: 

http://www.va.gov/vetdata/


Another truism overlooked by the Left in their rush to ban guns is that "the military" isn't a mindless machine nor are our citizens in uniform mindless automotons who would shoot down American citizens when ordered.  No doubt some might, but most officers and senior NCOs I know would either refuse the order as unlawful or turn on those giving the order. 

Obviously you've never served in our military so let me remind you of the oath taken by every officer who has served: 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
_“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 

_Notice that the oath is to the Constitution, not to senior officers, not to Congress and not to the President.

----------

Rutabaga (11-21-2014),usfan (11-21-2014),Victory (11-21-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> No, they aren't.  Anarchists are either ignorant fools or culpable criminals.   There's no middle option.


I don't think your generalization will hold water.  And I agree with  Max's opinion, which is very reasonable.

Some anarchists may be very opinionated and rash where others may hold more moderate views.  To me it relates to political freedom even though I doubt that is achievable within a civilized group of people. A certain amount of law and order is needed to hold the idiots in line and to punish wrong doers.

----------


## freyasman

> That's a common, but false, meme often spouted by the anti-gun Left.  What it fails to recognize is that there are ten times as many vets as active and reserve military personnel.  All of these veterans have the same training and, often, more experience than those currently in uniform: 
> 
> http://www.va.gov/vetdata/
> 
> 
> Another truism overlooked by the Left in their rush to ban guns is that "the military" isn't a mindless machine nor are our citizens in uniform mindless automotons who would shoot down American citizens when ordered.  No doubt some might, but most officers and senior NCOs I know would either refuse the order as unlawful or turn on those giving the order. 
> 
> Obviously you've never served in our military so let me remind you of the oath taken by every officer who has served: 
> 
> ...


None of these folks who say this shit ever actually think it through, do they?
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-ho...-by-paul-howe/

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014),Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## usfan

> None of these folks who say this shit ever actually think it through, do they?
> http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-ho...-by-paul-howe/


good article.. confirms what rocky said, which most of us already know.

Plus, if a people are defiant enough, they will overcome even a better armed, trained enemy.  It depends a lot more on the will & determination of the people than the indoctrination & training of the military.  Many a well trained military has fallen to a popular revolution.

----------

freyasman (11-22-2014),Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014)

----------


## Victory

> *Well, i don't think that if people have guns, they can resist specially trained soldiers*. Really, if government want to kill somebody, they will do that easily and 9mm which you bought someday, will not help you. 
> Weapons can help you to defend your house from burglars, but from someone's more powerful - no!


Okay.  Chalk up another person who needs to read about "The Battle of Athens."

And the last time I checked, the Viet Cong did a pretty good job with bicycles and bamboo sticks against "specially trained soldiers" and B-52 pilots.

No.  I'm sorry red fist.  You haven't thought this out.  The military comes from the South mostly.  And Texans aren't going to fire on Texas.  Chicagoans might fire on Chicago but Chicago is not on the list of targets.  Think it through.

Aside from that, I find your willingness to just bend over and take it to be weak willed and servile.

----------

freyasman (11-21-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

Afghanistan-ians.   They've successfully thwarted Russia and NOW US.  Of course they had the help of the allegedly American president.

----------


## freyasman

> good article.. confirms what rocky said, which most of us already know.
> 
> Plus, if a people are defiant enough, they will overcome even a better armed, trained enemy.  It depends a lot more on the will & determination of the people than the indoctrination & training of the military.  Many a well trained military has fallen to a popular revolution.


Go down to any Army post that has an Infantry unit, and cruise the parking lot. Count all the "Molon Labe" and "Don't tread on me...." and similar stickers you see on the cars. You'd have to be an idiot to think the trigger-pullers in today's military would act against Americans. Any officer who tried to give such an order would get stomped to death before he finished the op-order.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014),usfan (11-21-2014),Victory (11-21-2014)

----------


## Hansel

I think and hope to God that America is years away from having to revolt against the government. The fact that the Congress is finding some backbone is a good sign that the country is righting itself.  I find the idle talk and speculation that I see in this thread and others to be counterproductive.

----------


## Victory

> I think and hope to God that America is years away from having to revolt against the government. The fact that the Congress is finding some backbone is a good sign that the country is righting itself.  I find the idle talk and speculation that I see in this thread and others to be counterproductive.


Heh.  The ironic thing is you see no connection between your hopeful assessment of Congress righting itself and the idle talk and speculation in this thread and in the public itself.

Might they be connected?  Na!

----------

Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Well, i don't think that if people have guns, they can resist specially trained soldiers. Really, if government want to kill somebody, they will do that easily and 9mm which you bought someday, will not help you. 
> Weapons can help you to defend your house from burglars, but from someone's more powerful - no!



ever hear of a military coop?

----------


## Virgil Jones

I have a loaded .357 next to my mousepad, in anticipation of the Ferguson grand jury announcement, any day now.

Oh, and yes, I feel more empowered than I would otherwise.

----------


## Virgil Jones

Right now the .357 is loaded with .38 Special ammo, because that is what I practice with.

I wonder if I should load it with the .357 hollow points I also have, an instructor at a class I attended last weekend said it is better to use the ammo you practice with, meaning the .38

----------


## Rutabaga

> I have a loaded .357 next to my mousepad, in anticipation of the Ferguson grand jury announcement, any day now.
> 
> Oh, and yes, I feel more empowered than I would otherwise.


its not worth killing yourself verg...

----------

Virgil Jones (11-21-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Right now the .357 is loaded with .38 Special ammo, because that is what I practice with.
> 
> I wonder if I should load it with the .357 hollow points I also have, an instructor at a class I attended last weekend said it is better to use the ammo you practice with, meaning the .38



you practice with 38 spl. because its cheaper...if you need to shoot in defense,,go with the magnum,,thats what their for.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Right now the .357 is loaded with .38 Special ammo, because that is what I practice with.
> 
> I wonder if I should load it with the .357 hollow points I also have, an instructor at a class I attended last weekend said it is better to use the ammo you practice with, meaning the .38


The aiming and squezzing the trigger bit are all the same.  The ammo doesn't matter.  What matters is your ability to shoot your target and handle the recoil.

Several decades ago military buddies and I often went shooting together at a friend's ranch.  One of the wives was afraid to shoot my S&W 686 with .357s, but she'd shoot it with .38s.  I let her shoot it for a couple of loads, then set up 3 water-loaded plastic milk jugs, loaded the revolver with with 2 .38s and, unbeknownst to her, 1 .357 JHP.  She nailed the first two jugs with water leaking out through the holes then completely blew the shit out of the third one.  Yes, the recoil surprised her, but she was more pleased with the results than the shock of the recoil.

When practicing shooting all day, use your .38s for both cost and ease on your arms.   But do fire at least one load, if not two, of .357s just to feel the difference. At "house" ranges, say from your bed to the door, you won't see much difference in where the bullets hit, but, like the milk jugs, you will see a major difference in the effect on the target.

----------

usfan (11-21-2014)

----------


## Virgil Jones

> The aiming and squezzing the trigger bit are all the same.  The ammo doesn't matter.  What matters is your ability to shoot your target and handle the recoil.
> 
> Several decades ago military buddies and I often went shooting together at a friend's ranch.  One of the wives was afraid to shoot my S&W 686 with .357s, but she'd shoot it with .38s.  I let her shoot it for a couple of loads, then set up 3 water-loaded plastic milk jugs, loaded the revolver with with 2 .38s and, unbeknownst to her, 1 .357 JHP.  She nailed the first two jugs with water leaking out through the holes then completely blew the shit out of the third one.  Yes, the recoil surprised her, but she was more pleased with the results than the shock of the recoil.
> 
> When practicing shooting all day, use your .38s for both cost and ease on your arms.   But do fire at least one load, if not two, of .357s just to feel the difference. At "house" ranges, say from your bed to the door, you won't see much difference in where the bullets hit, but, like the milk jugs, you will see a major difference in the effect on the target.


Good advice, thanks

----------


## Anders Hoveland

> Wanna prevent tyranny? Okay, just do it by legal ways!


And just what would those be? Virtually anything that would allow citizens to have or exercise any real power has been made illegal. Now you are 100% reliant on your government to give you rights.

----------

Virgil Jones (11-21-2014)

----------


## Daily Bread

> What kind of pussy swears off weaponry because of a fucking _BB gun_ accident, that didn't even draw blood???


He did mention "shoot your eye out " so maybe he's having flashbacks from A CHRISTMAS STORY ! The same thing happened to me and now I refuse to open any package marked " FRAGILE"!

----------

freyasman (11-22-2014),Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

[QUOTE=Daily Bread;455148]He did mention "shoot your eye out " so maybe he's having flashbacks from A CHRISTMAS STORY ! The same thing happened to me and now I refuse to open any package marked " *FRAGILE"![/*QUOTE]

yea,,you never know what those french will send you...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

I've been discussing a handgun for the wife for sometime now.  After taking her to the range, she seemed happier with a fellow shooter's SA XD-S than my Glock 19 (too big a grip) or my Browning Hi-Power (too heavy).  We went to a pawn shop yesterday specifically so she could handle several models for a fuller understanding of feel and weight.  We ended up walking out with a Ruger 9E.  God Bless Texas.  I thought we'd have to wait a few days but after a background check we walked out of there with the Ruger.  

The wife was feeling pretty empowered.  :Big Grin: 

http://www.ruger.com/products/9E/models.html

----------

Daily Bread (11-23-2014),freyasman (11-22-2014),Rutabaga (11-21-2014),usfan (11-21-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Well, i don't think that if people have guns, they can resist specially trained soldiers. Really, if government want to kill somebody, they will do that easily and 9mm which you bought someday, will not help you. 
> Weapons can help you to defend your house from burglars, but from someone's more powerful - no!


Of course you don't think. You're advocating the most childish form of political ideology in existence, the Myth of Anarchy.    Adults don't pursue such silliness, they've learned how to think.

I don't recall claiming to have purchased a 9 mm yesterday or any day.  I do not make public an inventory of personal weapons.  

And you just admitted that the types of government you approve of commit wilful murder routinely.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I don't think your generalization will hold water.  And I agree with  Max's opinion, which is very reasonable.
> 
> Some anarchists may be very opinionated and rash where others may hold more moderate views.  To me it relates to political freedom even though I doubt that is achievable within a civilized group of people. A certain amount of law and order is needed to hold the idiots in line and to punish wrong doers.


ANOTHER person admitting to what we already suspected.  This thread is a GOLD MINE.

The generalization was true. Rothbard was selling books to fools, fools were buying his books.

The culpable criminal liar, the fool.

NO ONE that "believes" anarchy is a viable social ideology is indeed a complete fool, a term that includes both idiocy and gullibility.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Okay.  Chalk up another person who needs to read about "The Battle of Athens."
> 
> And the last time I checked, the Viet Cong did a pretty good job with bicycles and bamboo sticks against "specially trained soldiers" and B-52 pilots.
> 
> No.  I'm sorry red fist.  You haven't thought this out.  The military comes from the South mostly.  And Texans aren't going to fire on Texas.  Chicagoans might fire on Chicago but Chicago is not on the list of targets.  Think it through.
> 
> Aside from that, I find your willingness to just bend over and take it to be weak willed and servile.



You mean in the war in which the United States established a completely arbitrary line above which we would not attack?  The war the US won, only to see the victory thrown away by the Rodents in the 94th Congress, a national embarrassment only recently repeated by King Ebola in Iraq.

----------


## Network

> ANOTHER person admitting to what we already suspected.  This thread is a GOLD MINE.
> 
> The generalization was true. Rothbard was selling books to fools, fools were buying his books.
> 
> The culpable criminal liar, the fool.
> 
> NO ONE that "believes" anarchy is a viable social ideology is indeed a complete fool, a term that includes both idiocy and gullibility.


Everyone believes in the success of the state.

It's only resulted in incredible fucking destruction and death through the ages. 

You're on top of things, sled dog, husky shill, tell us what is crazy.

----------


## Sled Dog

> ever hear of a military coop?



It's where the keep the chickens, isn't it?

So the military coop is around the colonel's neck.

----------

Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Network

Statists will ignore all of the wars and dicktators killing off millions of their own to argue about something that has never happened, an anarchist threat.

programmed brain issue imo.
Stockholm syndrome.
Imaginary thinking
Futuristic conspiracy thinkers with mental problems.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Statists will ignore all of the wars and dicktators killing off millions of their own to argue about something that has never happened, an anarchist threat.
> 
> programmed brain issue imo.
> Stockholm syndrome.
> Imaginary thinking
> Futuristic conspiracy thinkers with mental problems.


Oh.  

Anarchist threats are imaginary are they?

Anarchist Gavrillo Princep started WWI.

----------


## Network

> Oh.  
> 
> Anarchist threats are imaginary are they?
> 
> Anarchist Gavrillo Princep started WWI.


No one has heard of that and it probably would've ended quickly without all of the state powers siphoning the funds of millions of people to build war machines.

You're smart enough to know what it's all about. And it's not about "protecting your freedom". That's laughable bullshit.

It's about powerful groups of people protecting and taking resources. Always has been. That's what the State/Nation is about. Say otherwise, you're a liar.

----------


## Rutabaga

> It's where the keep the chickens, isn't it?
> 
> So the military coop is around the colonel's neck.


[stupid spell check,,]

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-21-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> [stupid spell check,,]


A friend played a trick on his wife and changed "love" to autocorrect to "fuck" in her smartphone.  She had it on there for over a month before someone showed her how to fix it.

----------

freyasman (11-22-2014),Rutabaga (11-21-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> It's where the keep the chickens, isn't it?
> 
> So the military coop is around the colonel's neck.



their raising special "black opps" chickens that are born with "camouflage" feathers that blend in so well with their background, it was necessary to develope special cages known as "military coops"...

----------

Daily Bread (11-23-2014),freyasman (11-22-2014),Max Rockatansky (11-22-2014),usfan (11-22-2014)

----------


## freyasman

> Right now the .357 is loaded with .38 Special ammo, because that is what I practice with.
> 
> I wonder if I should load it with the .357 hollow points I also have, an instructor at a class I attended last weekend said it is better to use the ammo you practice with, meaning the .38


The 357 magnum 125 grain jacketed hollow-point is one of the best all-time, most effective handgun rounds in the history of American law-enforcement, but it can be a bit much for some folks. If you're willing to put in the practice time, it'll serve you well, but if not, they're are plenty of good options available in 38 special. I like the old "FBI load" http://www.midwayusa.com/product/548...oint-box-of-50

----------


## teeceetx

Empower, no.  Provide a sense of security, yes.

----------


## Daily Bread

> their raising special "black opps" chickens that are born with "camouflage" feathers that blend in so well with their background, it was necessary to develope special cages known as "military coops"...


You guys got this all wrong cause in the 60s I had a military coop that had a 357 in it and a Hurst 4 speed that did a quarter mile in 5.3 . First on on the block to camo my ride.

----------


## usfan

> You guys got this all wrong cause in the 60s I had a military coop that had a 357 in it and a Hurst 4 speed that did a quarter mile in 5.3 . First on on the block to camo my ride.


Mismatched spray can primer, bondo, & rust is not 'camo'...   :Laughing7:

----------


## usfan

> Empower, no.  Provide a sense of security, yes.


You have to learn 'liberalspeak'.. They love to 'empower' people (unless you're old white men).  They want to empower women, minorities, children.. & NOTHING empowers a woman like a 357 in her purse..

----------

freyasman (11-23-2014),Max Rockatansky (11-23-2014),Victory (11-24-2014)

----------


## usfan

Duplicate

----------


## Figaro

Ok, here we have an indicative case 
http://www.wisn.com/national/police-...source=dlvr.it

Was she really impowered by her gun?
74a3009381fba2b8590d26dd4c1.jpg

----------


## Victory

> Ok, here we have an indicative case 
> http://www.wisn.com/national/police-...source=dlvr.it
> 
> Was she really impowered by her gun?
> 74a3009381fba2b8590d26dd4c1.jpg


She sure was.  She bought the gun to prepare for Ferguson unrest.  Not a thing in the world wrong with that.  Very smart and empowering thing to do.




> He told investigators that as they drove late Friday night, the victim waved a gun, jokingly saying the couple were ready for Ferguson, the sources said.


Well, there's yer problem right there. 




> He ducked to get out of the way of the gun and accidentally rear-ended another car. He said the accident caused the gun to go off and she was struck by a bullet in the head, the sources said.


Let us not confuse the intelligent, empowering, and responsible action of preparation with the stupidity and irresponsibility of brandishing in a moving car.  The two are worlds apart.

----------

Rutabaga (11-24-2014),usfan (11-24-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

empowerment does not negate stupidity..

----------

Daily Bread (11-25-2014),freyasman (11-24-2014),Victory (11-24-2014)

----------


## Daily Bread

> Mismatched spray can primer, bondo, & rust is not 'camo'...


Best I could do at the time . :Tongue20:

----------

usfan (11-24-2014)

----------


## Figaro

> She sure was.  She bought the gun to prepare for Ferguson unrest.  Not a thing in the world wrong with that.  Very smart and empowering thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's yer problem right there. 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not confuse the intelligent, empowering, and responsible action of preparation with the stupidity and irresponsibility of brandishing in a moving car.  The two are worlds apart.


Well, I agree, let's not confuse these things. But something has got to be done with gun control. Something that could prevent stupid appeal with guns






> empowerment does not negate stupidity..


In this case, should we allow such people to have access to weapons? And how can we insulate idiots from weapons?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well, I agree, let's not confuse these things. But something has got to be done with gun control. Something that could prevent stupid appeal with guns
> 
> In this case, should we allow such people to have access to weapons? And how can we insulate idiots from weapons?


An IQ test in order to be able to exercise one's First, Second and other Constitutional rights including the right to vote?  Would that satisfy you, @Figaro?

----------

usfan (11-25-2014)

----------


## Figaro

> An IQ test in order to be able to exercise one's First, Second and other Constitutional rights including the right to vote?  Would that satisfy you, @Figaro?


Maybe it`s not so bad idea to exercise one's right to vote  :Smiley20:

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Maybe it`s not so bad idea to exercise one's right to vote


May be it good to learn language under which you spam.

You-fella learn talk good like me-fella, all us fellas take you more serious, yes?

Kapeesh, Keemosabe?

----------


## Figaro

Ok, here we have some cases
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MM0AP20150326


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...9c9_story.html
Wayne La Pierre of the NRA replied that this is exactly why most colleges need to allow students to carry firearms, in order to make sure gun violence at raucous college parties is less likely...


Were they too empowered by their guns? Whether it was necessary to resolve disputes by force of guns?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Ok, here we have some cases
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MM0AP20150326
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...9c9_story.html
> Wayne La Pierre of the NRA replied that this is exactly why most colleges need to allow students to carry firearms, in order to make sure gun violence at raucous college parties is less likely...
> 
> 
> Were they too empowered by their guns? Whether it was necessary to resolve disputes by force of guns?


An armed society is a polite society.

This was proven by 175 years of American and colonial American society...before libburls went and made it "better" and criminals took over.

The only answer to a bad man with a gun, is a good man with another gun and the will to use it.

----------


## Figaro

> An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> This was proven by 175 years of American and colonial American society...before libburls went and made it "better" and criminals took over.
> 
> The only answer to a bad man with a gun, is a good man with another gun and the will to use it.


The matter is not only in will but in an intellect also

----------


## Figaro

> An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> This was proven by 175 years of American and colonial American society...before libburls went and made it "better" and criminals took over.
> 
> The only answer to a bad man with a gun, is a good man with another gun and the will to use it.


What do you say about these kids and this case?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MM0AP20150326

----------


## goosey

> An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> This was proven by 175 years of American and colonial American society...before libburls went and made it "better" and criminals took over.
> 
> The only answer to a bad man with a gun, is a good man with another gun and the will to use it.

----------


## East of the Beast

> [img]https://media1.giphy.com/media/BZQziX6q2hmX6/200_s.gif[/img]


When did you sneak back in? @goosey..Some one must have left the door unlocked again. :Geez:

----------


## goosey

> When did you sneak back in? @goosey..Some one must have left the door unlocked again.

----------


## East of the Beast

> 


Don't give yourself too much credit sweetheart.Welcome back though,

----------

