I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

No said:
Ahhh, very well. Then my next question, really more of a clarification, is this. You did specifically state that the founders had no intention of citizens owning anything beyond rifles correct?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that our founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the weapons of mass destruction that exists today. Only a RETARD would argue that our founders would advocate citizens possessing F-16's, bazookas, tanks, aircraft carriers and sidewinder missiles that could down a commercial airliner from the back deck.

If you want to make that argument, join your brother in arms...

ugly+twins+ozarks.bmp
 
Bfgrn said:
No. I'm saying that our founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the weapons of mass destruction that exists today. Only a RETARD would argue that our founders would advocate citizens possessing F-16's, bazookas, tanks, aircraft carriers and sidewinder missiles that could down a commercial airliner from the back deck.

If you want to make that argument, join your brother in arms...

ugly+twins+ozarks.bmp
Click to expand...

You are gravely mistaken. Not only did the founders consider such things, but they expressly wrote it as part of the constitution. Specifically in article 1, section 8.

Congress shall have the power...to declare war, GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL...
Click to expand...

Now what this means, for the unaware, is that Congress specifically WANTED to be able to give private citizens (the only ones eligible for such letters) to be able to own things such as war ships and cannons. How else would they be able to act on a LOM without them?
 
Yurt said:
asking someone to support a claim is not "going back and forth"
Click to expand...

Respectfully, it is when that person supports the claim, multiple times, and you simply ignore it and ask them to support it again, as though they never replied.

LOL (respectfully)

:)
 
Onceler said:
Respectfully, it is when that person supports the claim, multiple times, and you simply ignore it and ask them to support it again, as though they never replied.

LOL (respectfully)

:)
Click to expand...

you do realize supporting a claim involves explaining your claim. any monkey can throw poop at you and then point at his ass. it takes intelligence to make a claim and then support the claim with reason. hence my repeatedly asking you to explain. something you can't do.

unlike intelligent folks, you make a claim and then just point at your ass.

i know rana thanks you though :)
 
Yurt said:
you do realize supporting a claim involves explaining your claim. any monkey can throw poop at you and then point at his ass. it takes intelligence to make a claim and then support the claim with reason. hence my repeatedly asking you to explain. something you can't do.

unlike intelligent folks, you make a claim and then just point at your ass.

i know rana thanks you though :)
Click to expand...

Respectfully, you did what I would call a "typical Yurt thing." That is, moving the goalposts.

Your first inquiry was merely "what post?" I gave you 2, and could give you many more. But it became some sort of need for me to actually show you the whining in those posts, as though reasonable people couldn't agree about the baby-like complaining and massive whineage contained within.

:)
 
No said:
You are gravely mistaken. Not only did the founders consider such things, but they expressly wrote it as part of the constitution. Specifically in article 1, section 8.



Now what this means, for the unaware, is that Congress specifically WANTED to be able to give private citizens (the only ones eligible for such letters) to be able to own things such as war ships and cannons. How else would they be able to act on a LOM without them?
Click to expand...

Not EVERY and ALL citizens. It is not a right, it is a privilege.
 
Onceler said:
Respectfully, you did what I would call a "typical Yurt thing." That is, moving the goalposts.

Your first inquiry was merely "what post?" I gave you 2, and could give you many more. But it became some sort of need for me to actually show you the whining in those posts, as though reasonable people couldn't agree about the baby-like complaining and massive whineage contained within.

:)
Click to expand...

my bad, i assumed you weren't a monkey. i thought if i asked what post, you would also be able to explain why that post is a whine. i should have realized you're not intelligent enough to explain your claims. i'm used to people that, when they make a claim, they support it with reason.

i didn't realize you are not capable of that.
 
No said:
Are you INSANE?

You're suggesting that the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS isn't a RIGHT?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were that dense...I will highlight the key words that are synonyms of your first word: GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL

Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale.
 
Bfgrn said:
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were that dense...I will highlight the key words that are synonyms of your first word: GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL

Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale.
Click to expand...
So instead you're suggesting that the government would issue such a letter, then purchase the guns and ship and then train the crew and owner of the ship in their use? That's the navy. Also mentioned, separately, in Article 1.
 
Yurt said:
nuclear arms? should every citizen have that right?
Click to expand...
As originally written, yes. BUT, if you'll look towards article 6, you'll notice the part about treaties signed being equal to the constitution. And in your particular argument, that would refer to nuclear proliferation treaties.
 
No said:
So instead you're suggesting that the government would issue such a letter, then purchase the guns and ship and then train the crew and owner of the ship in their use? That's the navy. Also mentioned, separately, in Article 1.
Click to expand...

It is called 'privateering'. The private entity would bear the cost, and be contracted by the government.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Who Wants to Be a Privateer?

Ron Paul has proposed a novel solution to the growing international pirate problem. Congress should once again issue letters of marque and reprisal, he suggests, authorizing bounty hunters to go after pirates on the high seas.

Basically, he is proposing that the U.S. further privatize its military. The firm formerly known as Blackwater (now called Xe) has lost its license to operate in Iraq (although it is still, in fact, operating there). Here is the perfect opportunity for it to re-tool as a naval force. Maybe the Fincantieri Marine Group could start building pirate-hunting vessels, letting some Wisconsinites get in on the privateering action and bringing back some lucrative manufacturing jobs.

One thing to keep in mind, however. Historically, privateers were often (current or former) pirates themselves. We may find ourselves hiring a bunch of Somali thugs to prey upon their former comrades. On the other hand, maybe future generations will find themselves drinking Blackwater spiced rum. It has a certain ring to it... ref
 
Bfgrn said:
You see, you're 'hinting' at the same justifications for government killing those students as the right wingers I argued with about Kent State.
Click to expand...
no, i'm not. you're assuming that out of ignorance.

Bfgrn said:
IF the students had arms, there would have been hundreds of deaths. It wouldn't have been a solution.
Click to expand...
this is your cowardice talking. no politician wants to be part of that kind of body count of american citizens. they would have backed the guard down.

and your quote only shows that democrats consider people property
 
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028006.php

and here is the GOP showing that they don't care any more about the constitution than democrats do.

Today, Democrats offered a motion to recommit on legislation to extend expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act to ensure that PATRIOT Act powers are not used to violate the Constitutional freedoms and protections guaranteed to all Americans. The motion included two parts:

No Constitutional shortcuts. When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution, even in national security investigations

Challenging unconstitutional action. If a citizen challenges the government's use of PATRIOT Act power in a court of law, the case must be expedited to ensure the individual's rights are upheld.

A total of two House Republicans -- Texas' Ron Paul and North Carolina's Walter Jones -- voted for this, while 234 did not.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top