Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 265

Thread: Today's lesson in the constitution

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This message is hidden because Abatis is on your ignore list.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Craig234 For This Post:

    domer76 (12-11-2017)

  3. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,016
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,509 Times in 16,972 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Am I being read?
    Yes, with great interest I might add.

  4. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    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
    Madison wasn't the author of the proposals, he was the compiler and editor.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (12-11-2017)

  6. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    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
    Yes, it is "the shits" that the right to arms is infringed.

    I'm glad that you acknowledge that we are discussing actual "infringements" which are illegitimate restrictions on the right.

    Usually those on the anti side don't like to admit that the laws they promote and support exist without authority and are in fact, unconstitutional . . . Usually they go on and on that the laws they want are NOT infringements, so, thanks for the honesty.

    Again, it is my belief that given the legal circumstances and the status of the law, chances are better than not that "infringements" will be struck down, my belief is "the shit" will eventually get shoveled into the cesspool it should be in.

    That's been a significant part of what I've been talking about, so, yay for you . . . you've gotten me to repeat myself again!
    I love the right, always claiming "illegitimate" when they don't agree. Cry a river

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (12-11-2017)

  8. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    If there can be no infringements on the 2nd Amendment does that also mean 1st Amendment rights are absolute? "No law" seems as strong as "not be infringed."

    To be clear, does the no infringement of the 2nd include prohibitions against felons owning weapons?

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    evince (12-12-2017)

  10. #126 | 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
    and that same SCOTUS has approved gun laws idiot
    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ns-open-carry/


    By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Monday, November 27, 2017
    The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.
    The justices denied both cases without comment, leaving in place lower-court rulings upholding the two laws.


    note the date
    And so according to your reasoning, from today's conference we now know SCOTUS "approves" of discrimination in the workplace based on one's sexual orientation.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/u...bias-case.html

    Damn, that really is a shame . . .

  11. #127 | 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 RB 60 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
    Am I being read?
    Yes, with great interest I might add.
    Thank you for confirming . . .

  12. #128 | 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
    Except that it's not and the emphasis you so wanted to impart, "The original wording of the 2nd by Madison. Read it and weep, idiot", vanished into the ether.

  13. #129 | 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
    I love the right, always claiming "illegitimate" when they don't agree. Cry a river
    Do you really dispute that "infringements", in the context of the 2nd Amendment, meet the standard of "illegitimate" laws?

    It is a term that is Lockean in origin and is often used to define extra-constitutional government actions.

    Your displeasure is amusing; is it because you dislike the term in general or just my particular (correct) usage here?

    I get that you disagree with me, isn't that a given? Your point -- whatever the fuck it is -- might be better made if you actually made an argument that I'm wrong.

  14. #130 | 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 Flash View Post
    If there can be no infringements on the 2nd Amendment does that also mean 1st Amendment rights are absolute? "No law" seems as strong as "not be infringed."

    To be clear, does the no infringement of the 2nd include prohibitions against felons owning weapons?
    No right is absolute in an ordered society.

    Even the most important rights, rights that can not be transferred to the care and control of another person (un/inalienable rights) can be legitimately impacted. Life is taken, liberty is taken, property is taken . . . The legal disability of rights after due process is not an infringement.

    Infringements are restrictions that are enacted and enforced without any constitutional authority and/or arbitrary restrictions enacted as blanket prohibitions or prior restraints.

    That's the rub. The actual prohibition on the federal government is not how the words of the 2nd Amenmdent are defined. The real prohibition is that no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

    The federal laws that we have were first enacted under the tax code (National Firearms Act of 1934). All subsequent law has been written under the commerce clause, claiming that since firearms are a commodity / product that travels in interstate commerce, Congress can write nearly any laws it wants.

    For decades when federal laws were challenged the government forgot about the commerce clause and claimed the power to restrict the personal arms of private citizens comes from Congress' power to regulate the militia.

    I know, it's a brain twister . . .

    SCOTUS in 2008 invalidated all that "collective right" bullshit; the hundreds of laws that were upheld / sustained over 60 years, using that bullshit legal reasoning will crumble when challenged.

    Really, there are a shit-ton of laws that are illegitimate infringements; when it is time, a flood of challenges will happen and Constitution respecting judges and Justices will put the constitutional ship back on its keel.

    It will be wonderful.

  15. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    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
    Except that it's not and the emphasis you so wanted to impart, "The original wording of the 2nd by Madison. Read it and weep, idiot", vanished into the ether.
    Nope. That post is still out there. Clearly, the intent was in the context of the militia, with or without the conscientious objector clause, authored/compiled/edited by Madison.

  16. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    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
    Do you really dispute that "infringements", in the context of the 2nd Amendment, meet the standard of "illegitimate" laws?

    It is a term that is Lockean in origin and is often used to define extra-constitutional government actions.

    Your displeasure is amusing; is it because you dislike the term in general or just my particular (correct) usage here?

    I get that you disagree with me, isn't that a given? Your point -- whatever the fuck it is -- might be better made if you actually made an argument that I'm wrong.
    Gotta love Locke. Had to invent a philosophy that included a supernatural source of rights to justify revolt because life was such a shitbag at his time.

    Not impressed with your bloviation. Just an inflated way of saying the same thing these other RW crybabies whine about when they don’t like a decision.

    Squawk! Unelected, black-robed tyrants!
    Squawk! Dred Scott!

  17. #133 | 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
    Nope. That post is still out there.
    Do you know there's a distinction between "emphasis you wanted to impart" and the actual "post"?

    I'm gonna guess English isn't your primary language.


    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Clearly, the intent was in the context of the militia, with or without the conscientious objector clause, authored/compiled/edited by Madison.
    Well, if that's the standard for supported argument I'm just going to say the Madison was talking about patents and copyrights.

  18. #134 | 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
    Gotta love Locke. Had to invent a philosophy that included a supernatural source of rights to justify revolt because life was such a shitbag at his time.
    And your personal opinion is of zero import or consequence.

    Locke's political philosophy is what the Constitution is built upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Not impressed with your bloviation.
    And I'm certainly not impressed with your scatterbrained, incoherent ramblings that have nothing to do with my statements.

    Case in point:

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Just an inflated way of saying the same thing these other RW crybabies whine about when they don’t like a decision.

    Squawk! Unelected, black-robed tyrants!
    Squawk! Dred Scott!
    WTF are you muttering about?

  19. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    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
    Do you know there's a distinction between "emphasis you wanted to impart" and the actual "post"?

    I'm gonna guess English isn't your primary language.




    Well, if that's the standard for supported argument I'm just going to say the Madison was talking about patents and copyrights.
    Yeah, stick with the copyright thing.

Similar Threads

  1. Today is Constitution Day
    By Русский агент in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-17-2017, 09:26 AM
  2. Replies: 76
    Last Post: 12-29-2015, 05:15 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 08:52 AM
  4. Lesson 1
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 04:37 AM
  5. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 01:45 PM

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
  •