RE: Duty to retreat...

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

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

Message

Yachtie -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 7:46:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif]

Zonie63 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 8:31:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Just out of curiosity, how much about America in general is usually studied in British schools? The reason I ask is because I've talked to many Brits who seem remarkably well-informed about contemporary American politics and culture. But I've also found many of these same people rather fuzzy on U.S. history and seem unaware of how America got to this point. By saying that it's not important to most Brits, it almost sounds like you're intentionally trying to forget your own country's role in helping to set up this remarkable little enterprise we have here. [;)] I can chip in here - the answer to the first bit, is that American history (both colonial and post liberation) is barely touched on. Part of the problem, and this isn't intended as a dig, is that we have so much fucking history! In the early 1800's we were fighting a European war, and afterwards we set about creating the British Raj in India (again, I'm not bragging - it's just what happened). So pretty much every topic from Ireland, to America, to India is covered very superficially. People will tend to be moderately well informed about the current state of the US because, given the USA's superpower status, our news papers and TV news cover american politics in a fair bit of detail. The one downfall of the coverage is that we tend to get a pretty polarized view of america - which, must like this section of the boards, doesn't necessarily represent what regular Americans think and do. I've noticed the polarized view of which you speak, although the problem may be due to glossing over the history and background. Message boards seem to be more of a place for posturing (which might have its place), but oftentimes I get the feeling that there are some who really don't know how America got to this point or why many Americans believe as they do. The American Revolution is still important to us and still carries some measure of influence on how Americans see themselves, Britain, and the rest of the world. But if it's not important to the British and they don't study very much of it, then it may explain some of the misunderstandings I've observed. Actually, the U.S. Civil War is probably a more pivotal event in our history and probably even more of a factor in making America what it is today. It probably has more space in American history books and carries more importance in U.S. history. I suppose that probably gets even less coverage in British history classes?

DomKen -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 8:51:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 9:26:19 AM)
"If we wish to hide behind court cases, then when the next truly horrible event that pales Sandy Hook erupts; things will not go well for gun owners or the 2nd" Hide behind court rulings? We have the historical documents showing it was intended as an individual right. We have the court rulings which confirm this but if we don't give up this right things will go bad for us and it will be taken away? how reasonable.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 9:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. No in confirmed a punishment for a crime, once again you fail to comprehend the difference.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 9:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Facts don't matter to joether. His view is based on "wisdom". And you usually bring nothing useful to most threads. Isn't it better to bring facts than opinion? Funny how it was opinions that brought about the United States of America in the first place. Or have you not studied early American history? Why did the Boston Tea Party take place? Are you saying your opinion outweighs facts? He has flat out stated that his "wisdom" outweighs any facts.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 9:36:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st. This particular law is based on the proven progression of violence in a very specific situation. It does not as, you seem to want us to believe, deprive people of the righto bear arms with the commission of any other misdemeanor.

DomKen -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 9:45:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st. This particular law is based on the proven progression of violence in a very specific situation. It does not as, you seem to want us to believe, deprive people of the righto bear arms with the commission of any other misdemeanor. So? The fact is that the precedent has been set. The right can be taken away forever for conviction of a misdemeanor. That makes it distinctly different from the actual Constitutional rights.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:21:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st. This particular law is based on the proven progression of violence in a very specific situation. It does not as, you seem to want us to believe, deprive people of the righto bear arms with the commission of any other misdemeanor. So? The fact is that the precedent has been set. The right can be taken away forever for conviction of a misdemeanor. That makes it distinctly different from the actual Constitutional rights. Get out your handi dandy copy of the Constitution Check amendments read number 2 Glad to see that you have joined the slippery slope view of the attack on our rights If one can be chipped away at till its gone they all can.

DomKen -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st. This particular law is based on the proven progression of violence in a very specific situation. It does not as, you seem to want us to believe, deprive people of the righto bear arms with the commission of any other misdemeanor. So? The fact is that the precedent has been set. The right can be taken away forever for conviction of a misdemeanor. That makes it distinctly different from the actual Constitutional rights. Get out your handi dandy copy of the Constitution Check amendments read number 2 Glad to see that you have joined the slippery slope view of the attack on our rights If one can be chipped away at till its gone they all can. No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then. And SCOTUS confirmed it again this week. Now we just have to get to a sane set of rules in place that work in a modern society and stop trying to pretend its still the late 18th century.

crazyml -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 10:43:16 AM)
[Ed to add missing words] eah, if the brits had a better understanding of both the war of independence and the civil war they'd have a MUCH MUCH better understanding of Americans. I lived within a mile of the North Bridge, on the very road some of the redcoats marched up to get their first whuppin, for a couple of years, and it taught be a whole lot.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 11:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyway SCOTUS decided this week that the 2nd is not an individual right. The right to bear arms can be permanently taken away by a court for a misdemeanor conviction which no individual right can be. Only you... [sm=applause.gif] [sm=doh.gif] Can any other Constitutional right be taken away for a misdemeanor? No. So the 2nd is not the same type of right as those granted by the 1st. This particular law is based on the proven progression of violence in a very specific situation. It does not as, you seem to want us to believe, deprive people of the righto bear arms with the commission of any other misdemeanor. So? The fact is that the precedent has been set. The right can be taken away forever for conviction of a misdemeanor. That makes it distinctly different from the actual Constitutional rights. Get out your handi dandy copy of the Constitution Check amendments read number 2 Glad to see that you have joined the slippery slope view of the attack on our rights If one can be chipped away at till its gone they all can. No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then. And SCOTUS confirmed it again this week. Now we just have to get to a sane set of rules in place that work in a modern society and stop trying to pretend its still the late 18th century. So the fact that it is in the constitution does not make it a constitutional right. The fact that the Supreme Court has always said it is an individual right doesn't make it one. I find it had to accept that anyone would be so short sighted as to cheerfully support the undermining of one constitutional right and failing to comprehend that when one goes the rest won't be far behind.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 11:25:06 AM)
"No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then" The fact that you were wrong then doesn't make you right now.

DomKen -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 12:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD "No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then" The fact that you were wrong then doesn't make you right now. Just me and the Supreme Court.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD "No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then" The fact that you were wrong then doesn't make you right now. Just me and the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court didn't say what you want them to have said. Are you intelligent enough to see that if it works the way you want with the 2nd the same things can be used to destroy the rest of the bill of rights or are you truly that myopic?

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD "No. The 2nd has always been different. It was specifically different in Heller and I told you so back then" The fact that you were wrong then doesn't make you right now. Just me and the Supreme Court. It clearly made it part of the punishment for a crime and in no way said that it affected the 2nd as a individual right. It is like upholding a law that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claiming that this means that freedom of speech is out the window.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It clearly made it part of the punishment for a crime and in no way said that it affected the 2nd as a individual right. It is like upholding a law that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claiming that this means that freedom of speech is out the window. 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. quote: ORIGINAL: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State 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. Yet the cases heard by the supreme court, those "rights" were actually infringed in spite of the constitution saying it shall not be infringed. This is a classic case of the set-in-stone constitution that you hold so dearly, actually being rescinded. Ergo, the constitution can be overturned by a government body, the very epitomy of what it is supposed to protect the people from happening.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It clearly made it part of the punishment for a crime and in no way said that it affected the 2nd as a individual right. It is like upholding a law that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claiming that this means that freedom of speech is out the window. 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. quote: ORIGINAL: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State 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. Yet the cases heard by the supreme court, those "rights" were actually infringed in spite of the constitution saying it shall not be infringed. This is a classic case of the set-in-stone constitution that you hold so dearly, actually being rescinded. Ergo, the constitution can be overturned by a government body, the very epitomy of what it is supposed to protect the people from happening. So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad.

BamaD -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:32:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It clearly made it part of the punishment for a crime and in no way said that it affected the 2nd as a individual right. It is like upholding a law that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claiming that this means that freedom of speech is out the window. 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. quote: ORIGINAL: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State 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. Yet the cases heard by the supreme court, those "rights" were actually infringed in spite of the constitution saying it shall not be infringed. This is a classic case of the set-in-stone constitution that you hold so dearly, actually being rescinded. Ergo, the constitution can be overturned by a government body, the very epitomy of what it is supposed to protect the people from happening. You do not even realize that the U S Secretary of State has no role in the ratification of any U S law or constitutional amendment. Until you have a better grasp of how our government works you might not want to display your ignorance. PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Duty to retreat... (3/27/2014 1:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad. Nope. Not even close. I'm saying that your 2nd isn't a constitutional "right" that you keep banging on about. Something akin to what DomKen said... it's different. 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.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625