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

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 5:43:08 PM)
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 You can say that all you want. Right or wrong it still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the same thing, with or without the militia clause. They could have written, because we want a secure state, and because we want a prepared militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It still means the same thing.

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 5:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. Oh..... I guess you don't know any liberals [8D]

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 6:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. That is right, they are individual rights period, not something to be tossed aside because someone noticed that it is older than they are. We have another thread were someone basically wants to do away with freedom of the press.

AtUrCervix -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 6:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. Oh..... I guess you don't know any liberals [8D] I know several (I'm one of them). Doesn't change the Constitution....or the Amendments.

AtUrCervix -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 7:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. That is right, they are individual rights period, not something to be tossed aside because someone noticed that it is older than they are. We have another thread were someone basically wants to do away with freedom of the press. And that's been going on for years (decades) as well. Probably one of the easier ones to dilute.....by drips. We all need to be on watch.

dcnovice -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 7:21:39 PM)
nm

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice nm Oh c'mon, give it your best shot [8D]

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. Oh..... I guess you don't know any liberals [8D] I know several (I'm one of them). Doesn't change the Constitution....or the Amendments. Hmmmmm.....so you're one of those intellectually honest liberals ??

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/7/2016 8:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. Oh..... I guess you don't know any liberals [8D] I know several (I'm one of them). Doesn't change the Constitution....or the Amendments. How can you believe in the Costitution and the Amendments and accept the extreme changes to the meanings that liberalism requires.

Staleek -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 3:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. I give a shit about life. I don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into. Gun amnesties have worked in Australia and the UK. Gun buybacks have worked in Brazil and Argentina. Most Americans are smart enough to, you know, make it to the police station. Maybe look it up and drive there in a car? One thing is for sure - if you aren't capable of safely securing your weapon, getting into a car, and safely driving to the local police station you have fucking business owning a gun anyway.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 3:06:58 AM)
WTF. First of all, come and get it motherfucker. Most of us are not goddamn so stupid just to give up such a useful tool. You guys can turn in your screwdrivers next, because if you can fix your own shit it costs them tax revenue. You think they really care about you ? Seriously ? T^T

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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 You can say that all you want. Right or wrong it still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the same thing, with or without the militia clause. They could have written, because we want a secure state, and because we want a prepared militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It still means the same thing. No, lets look at it this way. I have done due diligence and say without any doubt there is no truth to the notion, lovmuffin is a convicted child molester. remove before the comma, ignore it, and tell me it means the same thing.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:15:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix 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. Oh..... I guess you don't know any liberals [8D] I know several (I'm one of them). Doesn't change the Constitution....or the Amendments. How can you believe in the Costitution and the Amendments and accept the extreme changes to the meanings that liberalism requires. Its easy you speak in the English language, and in fact, not nutsuckerism and factlessness.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 2:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. I give a shit about life. I don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into. Gun amnesties have worked in Australia and the UK. Gun buybacks have worked in Brazil and Argentina. Most Americans are smart enough to, you know, make it to the police station. Maybe look it up and drive there in a car? One thing is for sure - if you aren't capable of safely securing your weapon, getting into a car, and safely driving to the local police station you have fucking business owning a gun anyway. Gun manditory "buybacks" haven't "worked" anywhere, unless you consider grabbing guns to be working. They haven't lowered anyones crime rates, the were already low beforehand. Americans don't want to take their firearms to the police station. Americans don't want to get rid of their firearms. Americans realize that by the time the police arrive they can check your body and maybe someday compare the bullets or what ever injuries the found on your dead body and if they get lucky put your killer away for a couple of years. And you ignore that even Bloomberg has admitted that more crimes are prevented with firearms than committed with them. The FBI extimates the ratio at 4-5 to one. The ratio would actually be even higher as this often goes unreported.

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 4:36:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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 You can say that all you want. Right or wrong it still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the same thing, with or without the militia clause. They could have written, because we want a secure state, and because we want a prepared militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It still means the same thing. No, lets look at it this way. I have done due diligence and say without any doubt there is no truth to the notion, lovmuffin is a convicted child molester. remove before the comma, ignore it, and tell me it means the same thing. Not even close there Scooter. Try it this way: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. The right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. Explain how giving a reason for your right to molest children is any different than if the sentence stands alone.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 4:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. I give a shit about life. I don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into. Gun amnesties have worked in Australia and the UK. Gun buybacks have worked in Brazil and Argentina. Most Americans are smart enough to, you know, make it to the police station. Maybe look it up and drive there in a car? One thing is for sure - if you aren't capable of safely securing your weapon, getting into a car, and safely driving to the local police station you have fucking business owning a gun anyway. They didn't know about TV or the internet either, so does that mean that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them? Maybe it means you have no (you left that out, but these things happen) business driving a car. If you can't handle a firearm safely you sure won't handle a car safely.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:00:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. I give a shit about life. I don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into. Gun amnesties have worked in Australia and the UK. Gun buybacks have worked in Brazil and Argentina. Most Americans are smart enough to, you know, make it to the police station. Maybe look it up and drive there in a car? One thing is for sure - if you aren't capable of safely securing your weapon, getting into a car, and safely driving to the local police station you have fucking business owning a gun anyway. As I suspected, you are British and, since you can't have a firearm no one should. We don't tell you what laws to pass in the UK don't tell us what laws to pass here.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:05:09 PM)
I have to disagree with that statement Bama...................saraah drives very well but has NO idea how to handle a firearm of any sort, nor does she have any desire to. It was a bit of a throwaway mate

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I have to disagree with that statement Bama...................saraah drives very well but has NO idea how to handle a firearm of any sort, nor does she have any desire to. It was a bit of a throwaway mate May well be true, and there was no offense intended to any reasonable person as I assume Saraah to be. However the fact is that a firearm is much easier to control safely than an automobile. There are just so many more variables. Saraah has no interest in learning about firearms so naturally she doesn't know how to handle them. He was using a throw off line about not being able to safely get them to the police station, (as if that were legal) when if a person both drove and shot with any regularity the fault would more likely be that they couldn't drive than that they didn't know how not to unload the firearm or how not to pull the trigger or maybe how not to wave the firearm around as they walked into the station. I know that Saraah could figure out at least two of the three, even if she has never touched a firearm.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I have to disagree with that statement Bama...................saraah drives very well but has NO idea how to handle a firearm of any sort, nor does she have any desire to. It was a bit of a throwaway mate You don't use hyperbole on me so I don't use it on you. You tend to discuss things reasonably so I try to respond to you in kind.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625