Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

Into the Night said:
Wikipedia summarily discarded. You can't use it as a reference with me.
Click to expand...

you can either remain ignorant - which you clearly are - or read the SCOTUS decision - which is now the law - like it or not

without understanding this - you should really stay on the sidelines - you clearly are clueless about why decisions are 5-4 anymore - it always revolves around the fight about how to interpret incorporating the bill of rights - which again - you are utterly ignorant about
 
zymurgy said:
How about standing armies?
Click to expand...
What about 'em?
zymurgy said:
You think our occupying 120+ nations around the globe is constitutional?
Click to expand...
We do not occupy any nation but our own.
zymurgy said:
You likely supported the so called Patriot Act for spying on citizens too.
Click to expand...
No. That is against the 4th amendment, and is not a function listed in Articles I or II. There is no amendment granting such power.
zymurgy said:
I see both parties running rough shod over this document when it is political expedient for them to do so.
Click to expand...
So do I, however, it is always done by liberals. Yes...Bush is a liberal...otherwise known as a RINO in his case.
 
Into the Night said:
What about 'em?

We do not occupy any nation but our own.

No. That is against the 4th amendment, and is not a function listed in Articles I or II. There is no amendment granting such power.

So do I, however, it is always done by liberals. Yes...Bush is a liberal...otherwise known as a RINO in his case.
Click to expand...

you are an idiot
 
Mr.Badguy said:
You must be really upset about the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 keeping you from owning a fully auto weapon made after 1986... Why haven't you risen up?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I can own an automatic weapon.

The act itself is unconstitutional, based on the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments, not the 2nd.
It may be one factor dealt with if a violent revolt were to take place. There already have been some skirmishes.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The 2nd amendment is binding upon the States. It allows any weapon. It does not specify a weapon by type.
Click to expand...

On the surface, the 2nd may allow any weapon, but Heller says you're full of shit.

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
 
Into the Night said:
It is legal to own rocket launchers. I have some stored away in my home right now.
The States have the right to self defense. They use militias for that.
The people have the right to self defense. They use their own weapons for that.

Both rights are inherent. They do not come from a piece of paper. What the piece of paper does is clearly tell the government HANDS OFF! The 2nd amendment does not grant any right. It simply clarifies a limit upon the federal government that was already there. It also places a binding law upon the States.
Click to expand...

thanks for letting the FBI know
 
zymurgy said:
you ever tire of losing debates with me?

:rofl2:

...deleted Holy Link...
Click to expand...

Wikipedia summarily dismissed. You cannot use it as a reference for anything. False authority fallacy.
Troops deployed to any country is not occupying that country. Redefinition fallacy.
 
Truth Detector said:
You brain dead dunce; do you understand the difference between OCCUPIED and DEPLOYED???? From your source:

The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world

DUH!
Click to expand...

Apparently he doesn't. He's been speaking Liberal so long he has forgotten the English language.
 
Into the Night said:
Wikipedia summarily dismissed. You cannot use it as a reference for anything. False authority fallacy.
Troops deployed to any country is not occupying that country. Redefinition fallacy.
Click to expand...

idiot

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally
applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g.,
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the
constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath
fundamentally altered the federal system.
 
zymurgy said:
you can either remain ignorant - which you clearly are - or read the SCOTUS decision - which is now the law - like it or not
Click to expand...
WRONG. No court has authority to make new law.
zymurgy said:
without understanding this -
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.
zymurgy said:
you should really stay on the sidelines -
Click to expand...
You don't get to dictate who can post here.
zymurgy said:
you clearly are clueless about why decisions are 5-4 anymore -
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
zymurgy said:
it always revolves around the fight about how to interpret incorporating the bill of rights -
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution or any part of it. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top