Page 17 of 22 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 328

Thread: Shocking, another mass murder, they've become as American as apple pie

  1. #241 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUN DICKHEAD

    74% of Americans stand behind gun rights for citizens

    STOP FUCKING LYING ABOUT IT
    except for that majority vote in California who are doing all they can to take guns. fuck you.

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    gun restrictions are perfectly legal idiot.
    SHALL NOT BE INNFRINGED
    or are abortion restrictions also perfectly legal?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #242 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Well, first off the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment so you should not be referring to the 2ndA to learn what the right to arms is and what or who it covers.

    Second, there is no federal law about a child simply owning guns. Under federal law, citizens and legal residents under 18 can not buy a long gun and under 21 can not buy a handgun.

    Third, the laws forbidding child ownership are state laws -- and only 20 states have such laws.

    Fourthly, a child born in the US is a citizen but they are not afforded the full complement of many federal rights until adulthood.
    so you agree that states can ban guns whole sale if they choose to?

    the right of the people remember


    or a state can choose to allow a ten year old to buy a gun huh?

  3. #243 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    except for that majority vote in California who are doing all they can to take guns. fuck you.

    SHALL NOT BE INNFRINGED
    or are abortion restrictions also perfectly legal?

    bullshit

    some are some arent

  4. #244 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    "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."

  5. #245 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    the people means who?


    where does it outline who theyn meant?


    citizens?


    all people?


    or were they aiming at preventing taking away the guns from all the citizenry.


    every sane person knows whatw they meant.


    they did not want a leader to fully disarm the people


    they say it in a nice way too.

    they word it so all are reminded of what hapoens to a country if someone desimates that countries entire trained military.


    the people can then take over the fight.


    you want it to mean something else for some other stupid reason or because you have not studied enough of the real history
    The right to arms does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.

    The right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

    The federal government is forbidden from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms not because the 2nd Amendment says so . . . The federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, the right isn't what the 2nd says; the right is what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government* from exercising powers it was never granted.



    * and now state and local governments McDonald v Chicago, (2010)

    .

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Русский  (10-22-2017)

  7. #246 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    so you agree that states can ban guns whole sale if they choose to?
    Well, the Supreme Court said in 1876 that the foundational principles of the Constitution means that states could not disarm their citizens "even laying the [2nd Amendment] out of view". In 2010 the Court applied the 14th Amendment to the 2nd Amendment which made the 2nd Amendment's prohibitions enforceable against the states.

    In the end the answer is, NO.


    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    or a state can choose to allow a ten year old to buy a gun huh?

    Well, they could, but they would be fighting federal preemption and supremacy which demands states follow the federal law. Of course if the Gun Control Act of 1968 were to be found unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to write any law on the private ownership of guns, then a state could write such a law . . . But . . . then it would run afoul of the 14th Amendment which forbids any state to make or enforce any law that injures a right recognized on the federal level.

    So, in the end the answer is again, NO.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Русский  (10-22-2017)

  9. #247 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,108
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Well, the philosophical choice back at the founding was either that humans have inherent rights simply because they are capable of reason and that the only legitimate government is one that the people choose themselves and consent to be governed by -- OR -- that government should enjoy absolute power and the people have no voice in it and whatever "rights" a person has flow from the generosity of the ruler.

    We made our choice and we went with Locke and Sidney and rejected Bodin and Filmer.

    There ain't much chance a reversal will be coming soon, so you can just peddle your ignorance elsewhere . . .



    Is there another nation that is founded upon the principle that all power first resides within the people?

    And that government is established by the people conferring limited powers they possess and assigning specific duties to the government?

    And that everything not conferred to government is retained by the people, with those retained powers then known as inherent rights with some being so important they are deemed unalienable (incapable of being conferred to the care / control of others)?

    So, unalienable rights is a meaningless concept if no government is being established to NOT surrender rights to.

    So, yes, people have been skipped so by all means, continue with your gibberish, spouting off about things you do not understand.



    That's not much of an argument against my position; I align more with the Federalists and their opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution (not that you could comprehend those arguments against a bill of rights without saying something dumb like, "rights don't exist").

    .
    All rights are alienable. I have yet to have anyone identify one that isn’t. Inherent rights? Nope. Until it is codified, your “inherency” carries no weight in law.

  10. #248 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    All rights are alienable. I have yet to have anyone identify one that isn’t. Inherent rights? Nope. Until it is codified, your “inherency” carries no weight in law.
    domer fucktard believes that you only have permissions that can be denied by the government at will.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #249 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    All rights are alienable. I have yet to have anyone identify one that isn’t. Inherent rights? Nope. Until it is codified, your “inherency” carries no weight in law.
    Never heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments huh? They announce the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and that of inherent (retained) unenumerated (not codified) rights as being rules of constitutional interpretation.

    I find it amusing (in a 'what a dumb fuck' kinda way) that you are disavowing the legal theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights including gay marriage have been recognized and secured.

    Did you mean to do that or is that just a unintended outcome that flows from your profound ignorance of the US Constitution?

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Русский  (10-22-2017)

  13. #250 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    You hide behind your gun collection and your wall of KKK/neo-Nazi brethren who live alongside you on your home street...



    ...because you're not man enough to face a real man one on one with no guns or crowd of armed, goon comrades to protect you.

    Just like the rest of your Aryan Nation Klan buddies, you are a big-mouthed, gutless pussy and you know it.
    Since you claim to know where I am (pictures you've posted, etc.) and haven't shown your cowardly ass yet, guess we know you're not a real man. Thanks for admitting it.

  14. #251 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,108
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    except for that majority vote in California who are doing all they can to take guns. fuck you.

    SHALL NOT BE INNFRINGED
    or are abortion restrictions also perfectly legal?
    Still haven’t packed that pissant popgun to the courthouse to test that ”infringed” thing, have you, pussy?

  15. #252 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,108
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    The right to arms does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.

    The right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

    The federal government is forbidden from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms not because the 2nd Amendment says so . . . The federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, the right isn't what the 2nd says; the right is what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government* from exercising powers it was never granted.



    * and now state and local governments McDonald v Chicago, (2010)

    .
    lol

    The Constitution doesn’t SAY a lot of things. So, the government has no interest in those issues?

    Wrong.

  16. #253 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,965
    Thanks
    12,108
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Well, first off the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment so you should not be referring to the 2ndA to learn what the right to arms is and what or who it covers.

    Second, there is no federal law about a child simply owning guns. Under federal law, citizens and legal residents under 18 can not buy a long gun and under 21 can not buy a handgun.

    Third, the laws forbidding child ownership are state laws -- and only 20 states have such laws.

    Fourthly, a child born in the US is a citizen but they are not afforded the full complement of many federal rights until adulthood.
    Odd. You just stated:

    “federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.”

    Yet, here you are, stating the opposite. It appears they do have an”interest”. Restrictions abound, pally, on rights.

    Rights not mentioned = inherent rights? Pffft. Take that to court, pally

  17. #254 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,479
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Still haven’t packed that pissant popgun to the courthouse to test that ”infringed” thing, have you, pussy?
    I notice that you didn't even attempt to deny the fact that you don't believe in rights, but government approved permissions. too many pathetic pissant cowards like you who would be all too willing to convict someone who dared believe in rights.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  18. #255 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    761
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 279 Times in 190 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 21 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    lol

    The Constitution doesn’t SAY a lot of things. So, the government has no interest in those issues?

    Wrong.
    But the Constitution says that what I say is true.

    The federal government possesses only the express, limited powers granted to it.

    10th Amendment: 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.

    Everything not granted to the feds is retained by the people (rights) or the states (state powers delegated by the state's citizens through their particular constitutions, again holding rights out of the compact).

    State constitution are especially interesting to read. They call out the rights of the citizen before any powers are delegated or duties assigned.

    Just for shits and giggles my state's (Pennsylvania) first constitution established in 1776 first calls out "THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS" then begins to set-out the "PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT".

    Wouldn't that be backwards if rights only existed because of their recognition by government?

    The current PA constitution still follows that formula; in Article I the origin and existence of rights are declared and forever held out of the powers being conferred, then the government's powers and organization and duties laid out in subsequent Articles.

    Do you find that structure of state constitutions at all interesting or compelling?

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Abatis For This Post:

    Русский  (10-22-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. This isn't the largest mass murder in American history
    By TTQ64 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 02-02-2018, 05:47 PM
  2. 16 years ago today, DEMOCRAT failures led to mass murder
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 08:47 PM
  3. ISIS claims responsibility for mass murder
    By Seahawk in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-12-2016, 02:26 PM
  4. Uber made him do it, mass murder suspect claims
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-15-2016, 07:07 PM
  5. Ill will: the scarcity mentality and mass murder
    By Hermes Thoth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 08:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •