RE: Duty to retreat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:41:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmao........ Like myself, Ron is a Conservative with a small c.


Like I said.. only in your mind.




Politesub53 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:45:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmao........ Like myself, Ron is a Conservative with a small c.


Like I said.. only in your mind.


More childish bullshit..... When you have learnt the meaning of Ethnic cleansing, google my posts on Margaret Thatcher.




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:50:36 PM)

quote:

The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.


Whew.

Bama, you have here put into words one of the most subtle distinctions that I have *ever* seen in any political discussion. No need to write any more, mind you - I don't want to put you to any trouble - I'll just keep reading your posts after this point till I can make sense of it.




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:57:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.


Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.




quote:


The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.


So predictable a idiot know nothing leftist response:

The Constituion doesn't provide affirmative rights. You're correct. But thats just a weasel worded attempt to obstruct the obvious truth. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.

So just to thoroughly embarass you and reveal the idiocy and deception of your arguments, lets quote shall we?

15th ammendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

14th ammendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So.. yes... the united states is prevented from removing your right to vote... In the debate onthe 14th ammendment, thaddeus stephens delivered the following speech whicn is part of the legislative history of the bill (and hence, yes, is of legal weight)..

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[19]


24the Ammentment


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th ammendment



The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So much for your weasel worded trollshit.


Now, as for the rest of it:


quote:

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.


I previously explained the legal standard the supreme court used to rule whether an action was constitutional or not. Did you see felony/misdemeanor?
Thats because its IRRELEVENT to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

Wrong!

Bush v. Gore

What the Constitution says is that if the states choose to have elections they have to let everyone vote. But there is no right to vote.

As to the rest, you seem to be confused or as usual lying.

A Bush VS Gore was decided because the Dems only wanted to recount
in districts that helped them SCOTUS said total recount or nothing so it was nothing
that was affirming that votes in Rep districts were as important as those in Dem districts.
B Another TOS violation Phydeaux could have your head if he wanted it.
C It appears that the blind squirrel rule does not apply to you.


Bama, I'm afraid the TOS rules really don't apply to lefties. In the words of mnottertail.. he's gotten so many golden letters he's lost count.

The fact that I quoted the various ammendments to the constitution that say that the President shall be elected by direct vote, and the right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged really doesn't matter to DK.



It seems you are right but I will slam him with it every time he violates them this blatantly.




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 5:59:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmao........ Like myself, Ron is a Conservative with a small c.


Yes, but by the standards of this forum, PS, you're a goatee-bearded, ice-pick wielding revolutionary Marxist who probably wears hammer 'n' sickle nylon socks. Like pretty much everyone who's ever posted here from outside of the USA. You should know that by now. ;-)




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:02:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.


Whew.

Bama, you have here put into words one of the most subtle distinctions that I have *ever* seen in any political discussion. No need to write any more, mind you - I don't want to put you to any trouble - I'll just keep reading your posts after this point till I can make sense of it.

Sarcasm DK said the constitution doesn't give the right to vote.
I was hoping it would occur, even to him that by denying the government the power to deprive
people of the right to vote it was, in fact guaranteeing that right.




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:02:23 PM)

Jesus Christ almighty, 'Amendment' has just one 'm' in second place. It is *not* spelt 'Ammendment'. I'm sorry to be punctilious, but for God's sake, there's a limit . . . .




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:04:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jesus Christ almighty, 'Amendment' has just one 'm' in second place. It is *not* spelt 'Ammendment'. I'm sorry to be punctilious, but for God's sake, there's a limit . . . .

Then maybe you should mention it to the guy who spelled it that way.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:18:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jesus Christ almighty, 'Amendment' has just one 'm' in second place. It is *not* spelt 'Ammendment'. I'm sorry to be punctilious, but for God's sake, there's a limit . . . .


What if they're referring to the Second Ammendment?




PeonForHer -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jesus Christ almighty, 'Amendment' has just one 'm' in second place. It is *not* spelt 'Ammendment'. I'm sorry to be punctilious, but for God's sake, there's a limit . . . .


What if they're referring to the Second Ammendment?


I wouldn't mind that, had there ever been a First one.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 6:32:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jesus Christ almighty, 'Amendment' has just one 'm' in second place. It is *not* spelt 'Ammendment'. I'm sorry to be punctilious, but for God's sake, there's a limit . . . .


What if they're referring to the Second Ammendment?


I wouldn't mind that, had there ever been a First one.


Well....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

(And they used only one "M").

BRB....gonna go check how many M's are used in the 3rd ammmendment




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 7:06:13 PM)

FR

We are arguing about the spelling of a word that
may well have been copied in from a web site?




thishereboi -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 8:14:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lmao........ Like myself, Ron is a Conservative with a small c.


Like I said.. only in your mind.


More childish bullshit..... When you have learnt the meaning of Ethnic cleansing, google my posts on Margaret Thatcher.



Apparently this is the big thing on p & r. can't find anything else to throw out there, claim someone isn't on the side they claim to be on. After all, who would know better, you or some random stranger on the internet.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:13:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

We are arguing about the spelling of a word that
may well have been copied in from a web site?


Well, if it's on the internet......




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:19:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

We are arguing about the spelling of a word that
may well have been copied in from a web site?


Well, if it's on the internet......

I didn't say that made the spelling correct, I was just pointing out
that it most likely wasn't the fault of anyone on here.




VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:53:53 PM)

Locked for review




VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/28/2014 10:44:32 AM)

Fast Reply

This is a reminder that the comments about each other that lead to a hijack will result in your posts being pulled and possible other administrative actions.

Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
Gamma




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/28/2014 11:28:30 AM)

FR so we are open again?




joether -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/28/2014 12:13:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
"If a "right" can be rescinded at an individual level, surely that means, in and of itself,
that the so-called "right" is no longer a right - at least at the same level as the rest
of the constitution. "

Here is another point you fail to comprehend.
Rights were not granted by the constitution they were recognized
You can be denied the exorcise of a right but it is still a right
Those things that can be given or taken away at the whim
of government are privileges, not rights

And that is exactly my point! [:)]

The 2nd gives the individual the right to hold and bear arms.
It also very specifically states that it shall not be infringed.
You've said and argued that point several times.

Yet a court can rescind that "right" to an individual - which, in your own words, makes it not a "right" but a "privilege".


The 18th century "....Shall not be infringed. and the 21st century versions are total different in meaning. Its like the word 'bank' has two meanings: Could be A ) The side of a river or B ) A place people store money in.

Infringed back in the 18th century meant the government could not order a militia to lay its arms down as a pre-emptive move to the creation of a tyrannical government. In the 21st century 'gun nut' definition, it means they can not be held to any level of accountability or responsibility with firearms since its their right to have any arm for any reason. Which sounds more like its the truth?




BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/28/2014 12:20:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
"If a "right" can be rescinded at an individual level, surely that means, in and of itself,
that the so-called "right" is no longer a right - at least at the same level as the rest
of the constitution. "

Here is another point you fail to comprehend.
Rights were not granted by the constitution they were recognized
You can be denied the exorcise of a right but it is still a right
Those things that can be given or taken away at the whim
of government are privileges, not rights

And that is exactly my point! [:)]

The 2nd gives the individual the right to hold and bear arms.
It also very specifically states that it shall not be infringed.
You've said and argued that point several times.

Yet a court can rescind that "right" to an individual - which, in your own words, makes it not a "right" but a "privilege".


The 18th century "....Shall not be infringed. and the 21st century versions are total different in meaning. Its like the word 'bank' has two meanings: Could be A ) The side of a river or B ) A place people store money in.

Infringed back in the 18th century meant the government could not order a militia to lay its arms down as a pre-emptive move to the creation of a tyrannical government. In the 21st century 'gun nut' definition, it means they can not be held to any level of accountability or responsibility with firearms since its their right to have any arm for any reason. Which sounds more like its the truth?

Well since the people who wrote it said that it meant individuals right to keep arms then that is what
it meant.
When you can change the meaning to be what you want it to then the constitution means nothing.
It's like the traveling rule in the NBA basketball, reinterpretation has made it meaningless.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625