Trent 0
Recommended Posts
Quote
I fully support freedom of expression wherever reasonable
"fully" is contradicted by "wherever reasonable."
Likewise, "freedom of expression" can't be reconciled with some fuzzy standard of reasonable.
Freedom isn't free. Morally it has responsibilities, but legally it means taking the bad with the good.
Andy9o8 3
QuoteI'll be enjoying my 1st amendment right, how's that sound?
It sounds like you'll just continue to mischaracterize what you've misunderstood, and you'll keep your mind closed to learning anything new. Your choice.
Andy9o8 3
QuoteThe lefties on this board believe the Phelps' despicable actions are protected Free Speech,
No, people of any political leaning who understand the First Amendment (certainly not just lawyers; it can, and should, be everyone who's had some education in civics) understand that highly offensive conduct in public is (a) sometimes constitutionally protected, (b) sometimes not, or (c) sometimes a combination of the two.
Just as the 80% of the population who are moderates don't appreciate being dismissed as "fascists", they don't appreciate being dismissed as "lefties", either.
For example (and I don't want to start a thread hijack into guns), there are plenty of moderates (and even some liberals, believe it or not) who generally favor some gun control, but who also acknowledge that the confiscation of guns in New Orleans after Katrina violated many people's Second Amendment constitutional rights.
Disagreeing with the analysis that the Phelps's despicable conduct may be constitutionally protected is one thing, and can be expressed quite intelligently. But simply jumping at yet another chance to get a cheap bash in at "lefties" is the part that's moronic.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Please show me where in the text of the 2nd that it states you can own a gun.
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.
That's really special how you embolden the part that makes you fell you're right. I can take any sentence and disregard the first 1/2 and change the meaning. Now, let's disect the statement.
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.
well regulated
Well regulated....hmmm, I'm thinking not even having registration in some states goes against well regulation. So the states that don't have rigorous regulation are in conflict with the US Constitution. Give me your definition of, "well regulation."
Militia
Last I checked, private militias were essentially illegal. They tend to bust apart militias as I see it. The government hasn't utilized militias since when, the 1800's? Since there are no government sponsored militias and private militias are disbanded and often sent to prison, it seems that this is the deal breaker in that the very premise of the 2nd is to establish and govern militias.
being necessary to the security of a free State
So you having a gun inder your pillow or a hunting rifle gains the security of a free state how? Militias were used to defend against foreign invaders, as it was written in spirit and context, and there is nothing required to maintain a militia since the advent of a standing army.
Now, I'm probably more pro-gun that you or most so-called ultra-conservatives on this board, but the reason we have 2nd rights is due to the fact that teh gov and US Sup Ct hasn't yet decided to take them. We have n0 inerent rights of private gun ownership, but I know it keeps you going to think that your gun rights are inherently protected, so keep the faith alive!
Lucky... 0
QuotePlease show me where in the text of the 2nd that it states you can own a gun. I'm a pro-gun guy, but the Constitution doesn't give you the right, they've just decided not to revoke our guns yet.
Would you like me to post the Second Ammendment or do you want to go to the library of congress on the web and read it for yourself?
I have read it many times and it does state that the "People" means the same as it does in the rest of the US Constitution, unless you think the Authors used the term "People" differently in this case, unlike all the other times that phrase is used it that wonderful document.
I will repost what I wrote above:
Quote
Please show me where in the text of the 2nd that it states you can own a gun.
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.
That's really special how you embolden the part that makes you fell you're right. I can take any sentence and disregard the first 1/2 and change the meaning. Now, let's disect the statement.
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.
well regulated
Well regulated....hmmm, I'm thinking not even having registration in some states goes against well regulation. So the states that don't have rigorous regulation are in conflict with the US Constitution. Give me your definition of, "well regulation."
Militia
Last I checked, private militias were essentially illegal. They tend to bust apart militias as I see it. The government hasn't utilized militias since when, the 1800's? Since there are no government sponsored militias and private militias are disbanded and often sent to prison, it seems that this is the deal breaker in that the very premise of the 2nd is to establish and govern militias.
being necessary to the security of a free State
So you having a gun inder your pillow or a hunting rifle gains the security of a free state how? Militias were used to defend against foreign invaders, as it was written in spirit and context, and there is nothing required to maintain a militia since the advent of a standing army.
Now, I'm probably more pro-gun that you or most so-called ultra-conservatives on this board, but the reason we have 2nd rights is due to the fact that teh gov and US Sup Ct hasn't yet decided to take them. We have n0 inerent rights of private gun ownership, but I know it keeps you going to think that your gun rights are inherently protected, so keep the faith alive!
The ironic thing here is that you took 1 word from the 2nd and made it definitive of the entire 2nd. At least the previous guy only ignored 1/2 of the 2nd.
QuoteI have read it many times and it does state that the "People" means the same as it does in the rest of the US Constitution, unless you think the Authors used the term "People" differently in this case, unlike all the other times that phrase is used it that wonderful document.
OK, so the people, meaning regular citizens, but that fails to even recognize militia requirement, well regulated, or being necessary to the security of a free State. People used to comprise government militias, but they don;t anymore, so unless we had some drastic war and the US military was in trouble, there will be no militias rendering the 2nd void.
As for wonderful document, we had slavery then and it took nearly 100 years to amend in anti-slavery text. The word, "privacy" is no where to be seen in the US Const, so in the 60's we had to write that in (Katz v US 196x) in the horible 1960's. SInce then your boy has done what he can to remove that word from the US Constitution.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteHmm, and here I think the other side is trash. You know, the moralists like Falwell, the GOP fat-cats like Limbaugh..... must differ.
Here's where your logic is again flawed... who would ever think that the opposite of the ACLU is Falwell and Limbaugh. I'd think the opposite would be level-headed lawyers with no agenda.... either that, or people who aren't insane with their own egos to the point they think they have a duty to always end up on the wrong side of a fight.
QuoteHere's where your logic is again flawed...
This exemplifies what you are as well as who you are.
Quotewho would ever think that the opposite of the ACLU is Falwell and Limbaugh.
Falwell = moral opposition to issues such as gay rights, premarital sex, any all other moral-based issues
Limbaugh = fiscal opposition to social welfare spending an other fiscal expenditures for common people and not for corporations and the rich.
ACLU = protections for poor people against governmental bullying, arguments against moral issues that deprive or imprison people.
I could look at the web sites for all 3 and find drastic contradictions between the former 2 and the ACLU. The agendas contradict, I think it's obvious.
Lucky... 0
Quote>I'm proud to be an American for many reasons. One of the things
>I'm proud of are the rights we have as citizens.
I'm proud of the rights we have as human beings. The constitution does not say "We the citizens of the United States . . " it says "We the People." People, not citizens, are afforded rights here.
>Voting, public schools, I could go on. Tell me, since you feel
>the "rights" extend to everyone, can illegals buy weapons here?
While many gun nuts think that criminals SHOULD be able to buy weapons, I am not one of them. The reason they should be denied this right is not because they are immigrants, or because they are hispanic, or because they were not born here - but because they are criminals.
>The point wasn't about criminals, it was about illegals being
>"given rights" that they just don't deserve to have...
You keep saying "illegals" as if you want to treat them differently. They're not different. There are criminals and law-abiding people. Criminals lose their rights no matter where they are from. Law-abiding people do not, no matter what their immigration status, color or country of origin.
QuoteYou keep saying "illegals" as if you want to treat them differently. They're not different. There are criminals and law-abiding people. Criminals lose their rights no matter where they are from. Law-abiding people do not, no matter what their immigration status, color or country of origin.
And even then they don't lose them all. They still have 5th, 6th and 8th, even on death row.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
They have a pretty defined stance on gun control; they believe that the second amendment refers to the right for militias, not private citizens, to own guns. You may disagree with it (I do) but your disagreement with someone does not make them a hypocrite.
The ACLU doesn't have to defend the 2nd Amendment. I appreciate their effors on the remainder of our rights. But I won't support them with money because of their hypocrisy on the 2nd.
It is impossible to reconcile their notions that "people" (you and me) have rights in all the other sections of the Bill of Rights, but do not in the second one listed. Somehow those "people" became government bodies, even though the BoR was clearly written for the "People" (you and I again)
It's quite apparent that they've made this distinction between "people" for personal political beliefs, not one of consistency.
And Lucky - we have more rights than those listed in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns, it merely affirms it. As a leftie you should know this.
___________________________________________________________
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.
well regulated
Well regulated....hmmm, I'm thinking not even having registration in some states goes against well regulation. So the states that don't have rigorous regulation are in conflict with the US Constitution. Give me your definition of, "well regulation."
Militia
Last I checked, private militias were essentially illegal. They tend to bust apart militias as I see it. The government hasn't utilized militias since when, the 1800's? Since there are no government sponsored militias and private militias are disbanded and often sent to prison, it seems that this is the deal breaker in that the very premise of the 2nd is to establish and govern militias.
being necessary to the security of a free State
So you having a gun inder your pillow or a hunting rifle gains the security of a free state how? Militias were used to defend against foreign invaders, as it was written in spirit and context, and there is nothing required to maintain a militia since the advent of a standing army.
Now, I'm probably more pro-gun that you or most so-called ultra-conservatives on this board, but the reason we have 2nd rights is due to the fact that teh gov and US Sup Ct hasn't yet decided to take them. We have n0 inerent rights of private gun ownership, but I know it keeps you going to think that your gun rights are inherently protected, so keep the faith alive!
___________________________________________________________
QuoteAnd Lucky - we have more rights than those listed in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns, it merely affirms it. As a leftie you should know this.
OK, where are these rights written, enumerated or otherwise given?
No, the 2nd establishes how militias will be governed. So you act as if private gun ownership is a birth right? Please establish so. The 2nd affirms private gun ownership? Wish it did; it doesn't.
QuoteAs a leftie you should know this.
Meaning that lefties are statistically more educated? I agree.
Lucky... 0
QuoteWe need Amendments. More Amendments to amend the Amendments! Before long we WILL be guaranteed the right to not be offended.
So BACK OFF!!!
:)
linz
A good example of that is the 18th and then the 21st. Established prohibition and then repealed it. Moralists should be disallowed the keys to the US Constitution.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteOh, but according to the leftists on this board, blah, blah, blah
What an incredibly moronic statement to make.
And now it's out there, for all the world to see.
The lefties on this board believe the Phelps' despicable actions are protected Free Speech, and I disagree. Thanks for your lovely contribution.
Go back and READ what the lefties on this forum have WRITTEN on the topic, then re-read my short commentary on it (the one you RUDELY replaced with "blah blah blah").
After all that, you'll definitely be prepared to take another stab at who's making "incredibly moronic statements" here.
I think he was labeling your sentiment as moronic. Then you turn around and umbrella all lefties...... hmmm, I bet he thanks you for your affirmation.
ACLU = protections for poor people against governmental bullying, arguments against moral issues that deprive or imprison people.
Yeah the same way they defended those poor downtrodden pedophiles that belonged to NAMBLA
It appears you're quite an expert on misunderstanding. Read the thread dude.
Great, you agree. See? It's not that hard to read.
Oookay, so where does the ACLU get off insisting that illegal immigrants have a "right" to public schooling, drivers' licenses, and other social services? Where's that in the Constitution? "Protection of the laws" and an entitlement to due process don't give them those "rights."
Are you a lawyer? The reason I ask is that it seems many lawyers think that the Constitution is a complex, flexible document that is somehow difficult for the layperson to read. It's those people that try to "interpret" things that aren't written there. So, when you cease to have an opinion on any subject that you don't equate to the level equal to Constitutional scholar, I'll consider taking your bullshit advice. Until then, I'll be enjoying my 1st amendment right, how's that sound?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites