RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 6:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. How do you know that it hasn't occured oh great one who thinks the 2nd was there to gaurd the central government?

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 6:54:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well as far as the 2nd, I see where you are going. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed.' That could be read both ways and I think rightfully so. As for the rest, yes as far as the debate for the original BOR, the founders drew them up for ratification in the interest of the people except where specified and found it necessary in the 2nd and 10th...to include both. I do however refer you to a quote during his senate hearings, "I think the 10th amend. is about the most dead-letter amend, of them all." Judge Bork. Also, "A person has no inherent right to privacy." At which time my father a life long repub who had quickly become very disenchanted with Reagan, actually for the first time, called his senator to tell him to vote Bork down...saying "This man thinks he has a right to know how I make love to my wife." (contraception) Plus the BOR (14th) has been extended by the courts (1884) to create the corporation as being a person and awarded the same rights as one, which was the beginning of the onslaught of corporate corruption, venality, malfeasance and outright criminality. The corp. before that, having been highly regulated. As per the rules of sentance structure the rights of the people phrase is dominant, the militia phrase in suplimentary. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a complete sentance and thus is the meaning of the whole. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, is an acknowlegement for the need for local militias but you ignore the fact that local militias were often called out on short notice performing the duties of the western posse or the more modern neighborhood watch. It in no way even implies that membership in a militia was needed to exercise that right. If membership in a militia were needed it would not be a right but rather a privilage granted to militia members and the founders were not so sloppy as to refer to a privilage as a right. Ja, dont pretend you have the faintest clue of English, there is no dominant and supplimentary (sic from someone who cant spell) phrasealogy in the English language, it simply dont work that way, you could consider whether or not it is a sub-clause, but its not, it is clearly an aposiopesis. By the rules of English sentence structure the sub clause in this case only gives rationalization for the main sentence. They could have said that cancer being a terrible thing, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed and it would have still meant that it was an individual right just like it is in this sentence.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 6:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 7:21:43 PM)
He knows nothing. just a blowhard they forgot to throw the fuck off here. Kinda like me. but the bottom line about guns is if you want mine, come and get them motherfucker. These assholes say nobody should have guns, well when you go to take guns from people, obviously that have guns and you do not because you "do not believe in them", how are you going to convince us to just hand over our guns ? Or are you going to make an "exception" and use YOUR guns to take MINE ? Amma just put this to rest. I do not need any goddamn amendment. You come and try to take my gun(s) you get them lead first and you leave feet first. come and get it motherfuckers, it might be my last day on Earth but I will take as many of you liberal assholes with me as possible. Whoever is the leader WILL DIE I CAN GUARANTEE IT. Come the fuck on, I am tired of discussing it. Git up here with your knives and whatever and I will show you how to kill. T^T

thishereboi -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 3:11:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way? Actually, there is a group that maintains that the Declaration of Independence is a "racist document" because it was written when slavery existed. Wouldn't that make the Bible a racist publication too? Well then maybe someone should let that group know that slavery still exists and see if that means everything written is a racist document.

Staleek -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 4:34:52 AM)
The bill of rights is always being interpreted in a biased way by liberals for their own misguided beliefs. Conservatives realize the truth - government has grown too big. They need to make abortion illegal, force women to look at ultrasounds, define marriage, ban gays from serving in the military, put religion in schools, give more power to corporations, stop Muslims at airports and stripsearch them, ban najibs and other Muslim clothes, force poor people to take drug tests, force everyone to learn English, and of course... ...stay out of our personal lives!

Musicmystery -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 6:21:21 AM)
The bill of rights is always being interpreted in a biased way by conservatives for their own misguided beliefs as well. There's no truth seeking here -- just agenda justification.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 7:09:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 10:19:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient. Then you remeber saying that the 2nd was to allow for militias. And you have yet to provide any evidence thay I am A On welfare or B A patient So quit liyimg or SFT

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 1:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient. Then you remeber saying that the 2nd was to allow for militias. And you have yet to provide any evidence thay I am A On welfare or B A patient So quit liyimg or SFT I do say the 2nd was to allow for militias, and you might want to learn to read and write at a 2nd grade level. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free Stat e , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Real0ne -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 10:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: We have been assured time after time that ''the people" means the states. May I have a cite for that assurance? Thank you. (123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1 Ex parte SPIES and others. (October 2 J, 1887.) ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT. That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580. It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself. The objections are, in brief, (1) that a statute of the state as construed by the court deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury; and (2) that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. Before considering whether the constitution of the United States has the effect which is claimed, it is proper to inquire whether the federal questions relied on in fact do arise on the face of this record. and: We the People? or We the States? Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788 I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. They 'illegally' converted our rights of the man (flesh and blood) to privileges of a pseudonym [citizen], meaning no longer above as originally intiended but 'under'. They had no authority to do that. Henry called bullshit, he saw what was going down, the separation of the gubblemint from the people by illegal conversion right back to the way it was beofre the revolution. Enjoy

Real0ne -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/6/2016 10:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The bill of rights is always being interpreted in a biased way by conservatives for their own misguided beliefs as well. There's no truth seeking here -- just agenda justification. the bor has always been misinterpreted to keep the people separated from their rights. People in the US are led to believe that their rights are 'under' the constitution hence the gubbleming has the authority to regulate them. They do not. The rights of the people are reserved rights, which means the gubblemint has no authority what so ever to regulate, speech, arms, exercise of religion. Goes like this: I consent to be governed and will only agree to be governed IF you acknowledge and stay the fuck away from speech, religion, assembly arms. Oh wait, the federal constitution was interpreted by some asshole whose MArshal I wont mention to be strictly by the states of the states and for the states and of course those rulings hold to this day despite the people 'of 2 states' allegedly voted for it. Gives role reversal a whole new face lift.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:10:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient. Then you remeber saying that the 2nd was to allow for militias. And you have yet to provide any evidence thay I am A On welfare or B A patient So quit liyimg or SFT I do say the 2nd was to allow for militias, and you might want to learn to read and write at a 2nd grade level. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free Stat e , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Are you so fucking stoooooopid that you think the fot size changes the meaning of a sentence ? The right of the PEOPLE, shall not be infringed. How the fuck simpler can it be for you to understand it ? And BTW, you are welcome to come and try to take my guns away, with your knives or whatever you have. Does Friday sound good ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:12:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The bill of rights is always being interpreted in a biased way by conservatives for their own misguided beliefs as well. There's no truth seeking here -- just agenda justification. the bor has always been misinterpreted to keep the people separated from their rights. People in the US are led to believe that their rights are 'under' the constitution hence the gubbleming has the authority to regulate them. They do not. The rights of the people are reserved rights, which means the gubblemint has no authority what so ever to regulate, speech, arms, exercise of religion. Goes like this: I consent to be governed and will only agree to be governed IF you acknowledge and stay the fuck away from speech, religion, assembly arms. Oh wait, the federal constitution was interpreted by some asshole whose MArshal I wont mention to be strictly by the states of the states and for the states and of course those rulings hold to this day despite the people 'of 2 states' allegedly voted for it. Gives role reversal a whole new face lift. Alien And Sedition Act. The fucking ink wasn't even dry... T^T

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:15:56 AM)
Are you so fucking imbecilic and mentally defective to think that the English language, plainly spoken changes the meaning of a sentence in a way that does not follow the English language, structure, and phrasing? Go back to the mental institution, you need a head pipe cleaning, you fucking cretin. "The right of the people, shall not be infringed", does not appear anywhere in the constitution, fuckwhistle. It is a sentence fragment.

Staleek -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:45:29 AM)
I really hate this. I really do. I find it intellectually offensive. Seriously though, does any rational person give a shit? The 2nd Amendment is just a few words. In fact centuries old words written by a bunch of guys who had absolutely no idea what the world would look like today. Clinging to those words like they mean something special is crazy. This is about guns again, and the fact it's guns and crazy makes it even worse. Literally crazy. But I keep on hearing the same reality-denying excuses to be crazy. Excuses like; "We need a militia to protect us from the government!" Your right to form a militia is irrelevant. Have you ever heard of a predator drone? You can sit in the trailer you've converted into pillbox, pretending that you're a bulwark against those seeking to take away freedom as you eat cold beans straight out of the can, but the government you think you can defeat is, right now, bombing the shit out of actual battle hardened militias every day. That's right. Somewhere in a middle eastern cave structure several people, who have actually seen real battle and not merely got a Steven Segal collection on DVD, are about to lose their lives without a single American being within 8 miles of them. What the hell do you really think you're going to do if they turn on you? If you really think you're going to do something to topple the dictators tanks with your silly little guns congratulations - you have a Rambo complex. "What if we get attacked by another country!" Again, at the time this made sense. America was not a mighty nation. It was new, it had a hostile British Empire just looking for an excuse to take it back. It had Spanish and French empires also looking for areas to create new colonies. Give the people muskets, if they come to our shores we'll at least make them work for it! A well armed and regulated militia wasn't just a good idea - it was essential to the survival of the United States. But do you think anyone is going to do that now? Does the USA face imminent attack by any nation intent on invasion of the sort that would see street to street fighting? The USA spends more on defense and has more WMD than most of the world combined. This is fantasy. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" This argument is so dumb it's verging on hilarious. Anyone who has ever said these words should be neutered, lest they pollute the future gene pool with their rank stupidity. The majority of gun killings, and almost all of the gun massacres, occur with legally acquired weapons. This entire statement is based upon the absolutely ludicrous idea that good people don't go bad. That good people don't snap, get angry, or do something in a fit of rage that nobody who knew them ever thought was possible. Haven't you ever got mad at someone and wanted to kill them, even for something daft and small? On a bad day, summer sun beating down, some idiot in another car cut you off and left you glaring at them in fury wanting to throttle them? Ever lost your temper with your neighbour or a friend over some dumb shit and had a shouting match or even a punch up? Haven't you ever had some idiot on a bike riding on a pavement slam into your kids push-chair and left you wanting to wrap the bike around their throat? Now add a gun to the mix, just for a few seconds, in that brief but hot time it takes to calm down, and you can see how decent people can become murders. Do you think the Lanza family had a stockpile of weapons because they were plotting a school massacre? No, they were just gun lovers. Do you think that people who shoot their kids and wife before shooting themselves bought the gun to do just that? Ironically they probably bought that thing to protect their families. Everyone single one of us is a potential bad guy - no exceptions. If you don't believe this I can't help the fact you are dumb. "People can just use other weapons!" Dumb dumb dumb. Sure, you can go into a school with a knife and start stabbing, but as soon as the first kid starts screaming from wounds all those others are going to run like mad. If you're actually saying it's as easy to kill with a knife as with a gun I must conclude you're either intellectually stunted or you literally love guns more than life. "This will make honest people into criminals!" Have an amnesty. Announce that: "from August 31st, it will be a serious offense to own a firearm. So please hand in your firearms at your local police station. If you can't make it please contact us so that we may have someone come and collect the gun from you. Nobody will be prosecuted for possession of a weapon before then." All problems solved. All disagreements about 2nd Amendment interpretation and militias dealt with. Just take the 2nd Amendment and rub it the fuck out! It's not sacred. It's not even relevant anymore. Change it to something else. Then make it a serious criminal offense, with a minimum jail time of 5 years, for anyone to be found in possession of a firearm - even in their home. Job done.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 9:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek I really hate this. I really do. I find it intellectually offensive. Seriously though, does any rational person give a shit? The 2nd Amendment is just a few words. In fact centuries old words written by a bunch of guys who had absolutely no idea what the world would look like today. Clinging to those words like they mean something special is crazy. This is about guns again, and the fact it's guns and crazy makes it even worse. Literally crazy. But I keep on hearing the same reality-denying excuses to be crazy. Excuses like; "We need a militia to protect us from the government!" Your right to form a militia is irrelevant. Have you ever heard of a predator drone? You can sit in the trailer you've converted into pillbox, pretending that you're a bulwark against those seeking to take away freedom as you eat cold beans straight out of the can, but the government you think you can defeat is, right now, bombing the shit out of actual battle hardened militias every day. That's right. Somewhere in a middle eastern cave structure several people, who have actually seen real battle and not merely got a Steven Segal collection on DVD, are about to lose their lives without a single American being within 8 miles of them. What the hell do you really think you're going to do if they turn on you? If you really think you're going to do something to topple the dictators tanks with your silly little guns congratulations - you have a Rambo complex. "What if we get attacked by another country!" Again, at the time this made sense. America was not a mighty nation. It was new, it had a hostile British Empire just looking for an excuse to take it back. It had Spanish and French empires also looking for areas to create new colonies. Give the people muskets, if they come to our shores we'll at least make them work for it! A well armed and regulated militia wasn't just a good idea - it was essential to the survival of the United States. But do you think anyone is going to do that now? Does the USA face imminent attack by any nation intent on invasion of the sort that would see street to street fighting? The USA spends more on defense and has more WMD than most of the world combined. This is fantasy. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" This argument is so dumb it's verging on hilarious. Anyone who has ever said these words should be neutered, lest they pollute the future gene pool with their rank stupidity. The majority of gun killings, and almost all of the gun massacres, occur with legally acquired weapons. This entire statement is based upon the absolutely ludicrous idea that good people don't go bad. That good people don't snap, get angry, or do something in a fit of rage that nobody who knew them ever thought was possible. Haven't you ever got mad at someone and wanted to kill them, even for something daft and small? On a bad day, summer sun beating down, some idiot in another car cut you off and left you glaring at them in fury wanting to throttle them? Ever lost your temper with your neighbour or a friend over some dumb shit and had a shouting match or even a punch up? Haven't you ever had some idiot on a bike riding on a pavement slam into your kids push-chair and left you wanting to wrap the bike around their throat? Now add a gun to the mix, just for a few seconds, in that brief but hot time it takes to calm down, and you can see how decent people can become murders. Do you think the Lanza family had a stockpile of weapons because they were plotting a school massacre? No, they were just gun lovers. Do you think that people who shoot their kids and wife before shooting themselves bought the gun to do just that? Ironically they probably bought that thing to protect their families. Everyone single one of us is a potential bad guy - no exceptions. If you don't believe this I can't help the fact you are dumb. "People can just use other weapons!" Dumb dumb dumb. Sure, you can go into a school with a knife and start stabbing, but as soon as the first kid starts screaming from wounds all those others are going to run like mad. If you're actually saying it's as easy to kill with a knife as with a gun I must conclude you're either intellectually stunted or you literally love guns more than life. "This will make honest people into criminals!" Have an amnesty. Announce that: "from August 31st, it will be a serious offense to own a firearm. So please hand in your firearms at your local police station. If you can't make it please contact us so that we may have someone come and collect the gun from you. Nobody will be prosecuted for possession of a weapon before then." All problems solved. All disagreements about 2nd Amendment interpretation and militias dealt with. Just take the 2nd Amendment and rub it the fuck out! It's not sacred. It's not even relevant anymore. Change it to something else. Then make it a serious criminal offense, with a minimum jail time of 5 years, for anyone to be found in possession of a firearm - even in their home. Job done. You, as most leftests suffer from the delusion that we would get in a standup fight, would never happen. As far as the hillarious notion that a good guy with a gun is the best defence against a bad guy with a gun, even Bloomberg has admitted that over twice as many crimes are stopped with a gun as committed with one. Get real of course at one time all guns were purchased legally (except maybe the ones in Fast and Furious) but that is seldom the case by the time of the crime. Example the guns used in the terror strike in CA were legally purchased but not legally transfered to the terrorists. BTW does any rational person not give a shit? To say that because of technology the 2nd no longer counts is to say that freedom of the press only counts for newspapers.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 9:39:05 AM)
the righists, the nutsuckers are without fact in all cases.

AtUrCervix -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 5:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way? There's no "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights....2nd Amendment or other....there's only one; What it says. In the document. It is / they are....incredibly clear. Remarkably so.

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 5:32:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL:. Staleek I really hate this. I really do. I find it intellectually offensive. Seriously though, does any rational person give a shit? You obviously give a shit though. I'm not sure why any rational person from the UK would give a shit about our laws or why it's even any of their bees wax. What I find intellectually offensive is the notion you could "just take the 2nd Amendment and rub it the fuck out" in such a way. I'm laughing at that....dumb dumb dumb...... [sarcasm]Yeah right, I'll toss 'em all in the back of my pickup truck and head straight away down the police station.[/sarcasm] Maybe you could walk us through this Second Amendment rub out step by step and tell us how it's supposed to work in real life.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02