Supreme Court Rules - Gun Rights ALL 50 STATES

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

"Yes," what, professor? Come on, there were three questions put to you. To quote the decision you mentioned, "what's reasonable about a ban?"

Three questions, three answers. Having yet another comprehension problem?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

#3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court?

I await the court's decision.

Once again your moral compass is wimpy, relying only upon someone else's court decisions to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of having the guts to make up your own mind and express your opinion.

It's not my decision (or yours) to make. You have already shown that you put your own opinion above that of the law. I don't.

We're not asking you to put yourself above the law. We're asking your opinion of what you think is right. Have the moral courage to take a stand for something.

If someone ever needs your immediate help in a life or death situation, then I will pity them, for your philosophy seems to be to stand and do nothing, until some judge decides, years later, what is right.

If you can't take a stand for what is clearly proper, then don't expect people to come to your aid or defense when you are victimized.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

If someone ever needs your immediate help in a life or death situation, then I will pity them, for your philosophy seems to be to stand and do nothing, until some judge decides, years later, what is right.

yup... as they say...

It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,184]

The Constitution means what the SC says it is, not what John Rich says it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

#3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court?

I await the court's decision.

Once again your moral compass is wimpy, relying only upon someone else's court decisions to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of having the guts to make up your own mind and express your opinion.

It's not my decision (or yours) to make. You have already shown that you put your own opinion above that of the law. I don't.

We're not asking you to put yourself above the law. We're asking your opinion of what you think is right. Have the moral courage to take a stand for something.

If someone ever needs your immediate help in a life or death situation, then I will pity them, for your philosophy seems to be to stand and do nothing, until some judge decides, years later, what is right.

If you can't take a stand for what is clearly proper, then don't expect people to come to your aid or defense when you are victimized.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

Phony quote.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If you can't take a stand for what is clearly proper, then don't expect people to come to your aid or defense when you are victimized.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

Phony quote.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

It's an interesting side note, but it is clear even from that reference that the commonly citation is a paraphasing, not a falsehood. He meant that same message.

It's the reason why civil rights matter, even when it's someone you don't give a shit about being trampled.

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco'' - mark twain.

OTOH, this does appear to be a false attribution, even though the statement has a large element of truth in it.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you can't take a stand for what is clearly proper, then don't expect people to come to your aid or defense when you are victimized.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

Phony quote.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

It's an interesting side note, but it is clear even from that reference that the commonly citation is a paraphasing, not a falsehood. He meant that same message.

It's the reason why civil rights matter, even when it's someone you don't give a shit about being trampled.

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco'' - mark twain.

OTOH, this does appear to be a false attribution, even though the statement has a large element of truth in it.

I'm sorry, there is quite a difference between paraphrasing and quoting. The former involves original thought. The latter is phony if it is not word for word actually what was said.

Quote

Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original author.

Paraphrasing involves putting a passage from source material into your own words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly.

Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) into your own words, including only the main point(s). Once again, it is necessary to attribute summarized ideas to the original source. Summaries are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source material.

As far as I can tell, you guys are just cut and pasting bullshit out of NRA sources.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The Constitution means what the SC says it is, not what John Rich says it is.

So you have no personal opinions. Your skull is just a cavity full of mush, and it doesn't know anything except what some judge has put his stamp of approval upon.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Phony quote.

Blah blah blah.

First of all, that quote had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA. The word "gun" was not even in the quote. It's a message about the consequences of remaining silent when bad things are happening to people around you.

Now, indeed there are differences of opinions about which groups he included and in what order, but the author himself concludes that Niemöller did in fact say something like that. So the authenticity and lesson of the quote remains valid, regardless of the trivia of the details.

"As a short summary of my assessment of the origin of the quotation and its original version, I offer this Jan. 8, 2003 answer I wrote in response to an e-mail query:

Yes, I think Niemöller did say something to this effect, or he would certainly have denied it during his lifetime [in 1976 the 88 year old N. indeed afirmed that he said it]."

And that does NOT make it a phony quote. The only thing phony is your claim that it's phony.

Hey, but at least you're trying now, with references, instead of just saying "It's NRA propaganda" and expecting us to believe you at face value. It's just too bad that your own reference disproves the claim you were trying to make. Keep trying though, maybe you'll get better.

So, the lesson we take away from your challenge is that when you cry "phony", well, we can't really take your word for it. Because if, in your opinion, if even one single word is different from the actual quote, then the entire quote is "phony". And of course, when you call something "phony", you mean to imply that none of it is true at all, but as we see in this case, that's not so. So your cries of "phony" are sort of like the fable of Chicken Little who ran around crying that "the sky is falling". You have grossly over-exaggerated your claim of "phony" in order to try and convince people to disbelieve something that is actually true. And like another fable of "The boy who cried 'wolf'", we're going to have trouble believing future claims of "phony" from you.

All this is par for the course for the anti-gun folks.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

As far as I can tell, you guys are just cut and pasting bullshit out of NRA sources.

are they verbatim in any publicly available NRA sources? You should be able to show that without too much effort. (should you choose to do more than make assertions)

--
Rob

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

The Constitution means what the SC says it is, not what John Rich says it is.

So you have no personal opinions. Your skull is just a cavity full of mush, and it doesn't know anything except what some judge has put his stamp of approval upon.

Irrelevant opinions are just that; irrelevant. You need to learn some humility, JR, your opinions on the meaning of the Constitution are worth absolutely nothing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who would have ever imagined that the Constitution, along with its Bill of Rights, actually applies to EVERYONE. (sarcasm) What a radical concept!

That has not always applied to EVERYONE. But at least it has gotten better... hell they even let me vote nowadays and I can own guns even.

Yes, it used to be that the constitution didn't apply to blacks.

You seem to miss Amazon's point. It also didn't apply to about roughly half of the "free" population either when it came to a number of rights.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That you consider it that people "play with guns" is a bit of a clue toward the lack of seriousness with which you approach the subject.

Why would I be serious about gun rights in the US? We are talking about a country that gets riled up about only a few things:

Boobies on TV
Brangelina
The birth place of Obama
Whether they get to have guns
Political debate is lead by entertainers and most people believe what Fox news tells them.

Somehow in all of this we have to be serious....now that is funny.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Irrelevant opinions are just that; irrelevant. You need to learn some humility, JR, your opinions on the meaning of the Constitution are worth absolutely nothing.

Well heck, who needs free speech then. We can ban all public forums, everyone can go home and shut up, and we'll just let the Supreme Court do all the talking.

But thank goodness there are people with the courage to say things contrary to the status quo. People like Dred Scott, Dick Heller and Otis McDonald. Because without them, bad laws would never get overturned.

You seem to prefer compliant little sheep who sit and do nothing when things are wrong. I prefer men willing to take a stand and challenge bad laws.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security."
- Norman Vincent Peale

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That you consider it that people "play with guns" is a bit of a clue toward the lack of seriousness with which you approach the subject.

Why would I be serious about gun rights in the US? We are talking about a country that gets riled up about only a few things:

Boobies on TV
Brangelina
The birth place of Obama
Whether they get to have guns
Political debate is lead by entertainers and most people believe what Fox news tells them.

Somehow in all of this we have to be serious....now that is funny.

A bit off topic but a serious question

Who (in your opinion) should lead the political debate and how should they do it?

I mean if you think those that dont agree with you are fed their opinions from Fox News I have to ask, who feeds you yours?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You seem to miss Amazon's point. It also didn't apply to about roughly half of the "free" population either when it came to a number of rights.

I didn't miss it at all. I gave two examples of how the constitution at times did not apply to large segments of the population. Just like in the instant case, where Chicago thought they could ignore one part of the constitution, denying their citizens that right which was enjoyed by everyone else.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Who (in your opinion) should lead the political debate and how should they do it?

Politicians. In the US Rush Limbaugh rules one of your parties. They even apologize to him.

Quote

I mean if you think those that dont agree with you are fed their opinions from Fox News I have to ask, who feeds you yours?

Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me. It is a matter of deliberately supplying false news and people swallowing it hook line and sinker.

My opinions do not feed of one news source, and certainly not only American news sources. Critical thought and investigation takes a serious backseat to entertainment value.

I mean CNN just hired the former Gov of New York to up its ratings....and somebody is supposed to take them seriously?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Who (in your opinion) should lead the political debate and how should they do it?

Politicians. In the US Rush Limbaugh rules one of your parties. They even apologize to him.

Quote

I mean if you think those that dont agree with you are fed their opinions from Fox News I have to ask, who feeds you yours?

Its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with me. It is a matter of deliberately supplying false news and people swallowing it hook line and sinker.

My opinions do not feed of one news source, and certainly not only American news sources. Critical thought and investigation takes a serious backseat to entertainment value.

I mean CNN just hired the former Gov of New York to up its ratings....and somebody is supposed to take them seriously?

Then why do you say those with whom you do not agree with get their opinions fed to them???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Then why do you say those with whom you do not agree with get their opinions fed to them???

I just reread my post.....sorry didn't see that there. Are we on to a different discussion?

[rushmc 23]

Your post

Quote

Political debate is lead by entertainers and most people believe what Fox news tells them.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Your post

Quote

Political debate is lead by entertainers and most people believe what Fox news tells them.

You must use a different english then I do, since I don't see anything that resembles:

"those with whom you do not agree with get their opinions fed to them"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Your post

Quote

Political debate is lead by entertainers and most people believe what Fox news tells them.

You must use a different english then I do, since I don't see anything that resembles:

"those with whom you do not agree with get their opinions fed to them"

Talk around it if you want to but you post is very clear IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Three questions, three answers. Having yet another comprehension problem?

You did not answer the third question, you avoided it.

"#3 Do you believe Chicago's ban is legal and should be upheld on remand to lower court? "

Your answer was not an answer, it was a delay.

[dgskydive 0]

You should here the mayor of NY. He says that nothing will change here except he thinks the cities legal bills will get bigger.

Dom

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Phony quote.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

From your own source:

Quote

There are in fact several "correct" versions. Niemöller named different groups when he first coined the saying, probably in 1946, than when it was revived in the 1970s and he was again asked about it.

# The groups he mentioned in several 1946 speeches were (in order, see below):

1. Communists
2. Incurably sick
3. Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech)
4. People in countries occupied by Nazi Germany.

# In 1976 Niemöller was asked about the quotation in an interview. The Martin Niemoeller Foundation in Germany takes his 1976 answer to be definitive [see: ]. In his long answer Niemoeller mentioned the following groups, and claimed that he started using the quotation only recently (at a 1974 event) :

1. Communists
2. Trade Unions
3. Social Democrats
4. Jews (sort of).

# I don't think that that 1976 statement reflects what Niemöller had said in the 1940s--he was 84 years old, and he might have forgotten that he had used it in speeches more than 30 years earlier. The first documented reference to the precise quotation that I know of is in a book first published in 1955, which is based on interviews conducted some time between 1950 and 1954. In that book it is likely that the interviewee added his own groups, namely "schools" and "the press." In any case, researcher/author Milton Mayer quotes a German professor he interviewed who refered to Niemöller having said:

1. Communists
2. Socialists
3. schools
4. the press
5. Jews
6. the Church (see Mayer, below for full citation)

So the ORIGINATOR of the quote had several different versions.