Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 12:55:28 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember Justice Stevens don't you?
In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens.
It wasn't his intent but he did it.


Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes?

The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs.

The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods.

What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty.

I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either!

Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning.

That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 2:31:16 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember Justice Stevens don't you?
In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens.
It wasn't his intent but he did it.


Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes?

The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs.

The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods.

What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty.

I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either!

Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning.

That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

Dred Scott
They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 2:32:48 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember Justice Stevens don't you?
In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens.
It wasn't his intent but he did it.


Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes?

The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs.

The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods.

What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty.

I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either!

Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning.

That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

So Justice Steven's word is no longer gospel?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 11:58:05 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		FR

A few years back we had an incident in Montgomery (AL)

A man broke into a woman's house to attack her.
She broke away and ran outside.
He caught her knocked her down, and proceeded with the attack.
At this point he heard the slide of a shotgun.
Looking around he found 3 or 4 neighbors who objected to his actions all of whom had shotguns.
After very little thought he accepted their suggestion that he lay spread eagle on the ground and wait for the police.
They were trained well enough to know how to use their arms.
They were disciplined enough to take action when needed, and to not turn into a mob.
This fit the writers definition of a militia.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 1:38:30 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		Yeah, you make good points, and I should not have been as facetious in my response.

I concede that the tyranny of the majority is something that any democratic system needs to guard against, but it is also possible to go too far in seeking to protect against the majority view.

I also tale your point that the USA is not a pure democracy (not intended as a dig)

The likes of Bentham and Mills would have approved of the 4th and 5th amendments being "immutable", I am just not sure the some of the others are.



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 2:42:53 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember Justice Stevens don't you?
In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens.
It wasn't his intent but he did it.


Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes?

The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs.

The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods.

What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty.

I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either!

Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning.

That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

Dred Scott
They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent.


So what about Roe v Wade? That was legislating from the bench.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 7:58:52 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You remember Justice Stevens don't you?
In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens.
It wasn't his intent but he did it.


Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes?

The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs.

The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods.

What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty.

I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either!

Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning.

That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

Dred Scott
They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent.


So what about Roe v Wade? That was legislating from the bench.

I could have used a couple of pages on bad Court Rulings.
I just picked the one least likely to create a derail.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 8:23:44 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 8:45:19 PM   
quizzicalkitten


Posts: 312
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body.

Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be.



Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world

Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )...

its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next...

So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty.

So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit,

and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough....

So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks...

So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over...

and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says...

you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are...


How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you,

Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not...


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 9:46:09 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy


But it was the legislating from the bench being railed against.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/1/2015 9:53:47 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy


But it was the legislating from the bench being railed against.

Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right.
But you see why I didn't use it for fear of helping derailment.
The Separate but Equal ruling was another.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 7:01:16 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right.


This is of course my point. There are numerous interpretations/clarifications that have been made to the constitution that people can disagree with AND that is different from wanting to repeal the original amendment.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 7:23:17 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/15/reasonable-mistake-of-law-can-generate-reasonable-suspicion-supreme-court-holds/

more legislating from the bench. Fourth Amendment now meaningless.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 8:10:22 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body.

Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be.



Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world

Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )...

its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next...

So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty.

So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit,

and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough....

So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks...

So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over...

and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says...

you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are...


How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you,

Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not...




Wow! And I thought I was passionate about liberty. These are for you.

(in reply to quizzicalkitten)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 8:20:16 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right.


This is of course my point. There are numerous interpretations/clarifications that have been made to the constitution that people can disagree with AND that is different from wanting to repeal the original amendment.

And I still say that when you "re-interpret" a portion of the constitution you repeal the original clause and replace it with something else by stealth means.
if you want to change it, change it, don't hide behind this "living document"
garbage.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 10:08:01 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body.

Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be.



Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world

Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )...

its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next...

So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty.

So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit,

and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough....

So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks...

So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over...

and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says...

you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are...


How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you,

Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not...




Oh come on now, tell us how you really feel

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to quizzicalkitten)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 10:53:16 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		quizzicalkitten

Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing)

Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517.
Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558,
Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners.
Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual

Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots"
of Protestantism
Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658
Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US

Next.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 11:14:57 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quizzicalkitten

Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing)

Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517.
Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558,
Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners.
Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual

Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots"
of Protestantism
Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658
Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US

Next.



So..........strike the third paragraph. We still got guns and porno (pardon the grammar). They got steak knives and cameras on every street corner.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 11:21:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I would rather eat a good steak.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendmen... - 1/2/2015 11:23:14 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quizzicalkitten

Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing)

Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517.
Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558,
Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners.
Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual

Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots"
of Protestantism
Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658
Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US

Next.



So..........strike the third paragraph. We still got guns and porno (pardon the grammar). They got steak knives and cameras on every street corner.

another clueless load of crap

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.113