RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (Full Version)

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



Message

Nnanji -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 8:30:28 AM)

UCMJ



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 9:32:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Since the Constitution trumps all laws, does this mean that, for instance, it's the absolute and legally enshrined right of all young children to carry guns into kindergarten with them?

That depends on the definition of "people" used in the interpretation.


This is why supreme courts with so much power are there, isn't it - to interpret the Constitution?

I've never heard any great argument that children are not people. (On the other hand I've heard, very frequently, the argument that foetuses are people.) All very strange: we all start as people, till we get born, then we're not people. Then we're people again once we're adults.



You have no idea how we can 'trump' that brit loonacy. Lets consider the 'federal' constitution for a moment, in jolly ole slimyblimyland you originally had large landowners that had their own courts set up for each manor property in which the king a ding ling as a result of the NC wrapped his federal law around them to create the tithe structure and centralize gubmint under the king where through its courts became totally corrupt.

In the USoK we have the e-states and of course the federal mobocracy set up to wrap our federal gubmint around them to create the tax structure and centralize gubmint under the king where through its courts it has become totally corrupt.

Of course I dont see any corrolation between the brit system and the USoK do you?

The today 'worshipped' founders literally copy pasted the 1649 bill of rights and magna charta.

That said the bullshit story fed to us by the SCROTUS-MAXIMUS-JUST-US CLUB since its inception is that the federal constitution was created by and for for the e-states, states rights. Oh fucking REALLY?

Then they gave the state sovereign immunity from its own people, who must ask permission to sue the king, um I mean the e-state, or state for the literacy challenged, just like the slimyblimylimyville pre-revolution, no correlation there either of course.

Now talk about the icing on the cake, the cherry on top of this fucking pile of bullshit, not what is said that glows in the dark its whats NOT said.

SCROTUMUS MAXIMUS in their infinite brilliance and the people in their infinite stupidity who sucked up that INTERPRETATION that the federal constitution is for the states, then:

DO TELL:

which STATE has the 'RIGHT' to:

1) exercize ITS religion,

2) bear an arm,

3) oh and lets not forget the right to 'LIFE',

You are now entering the beautiful STATE OF FRANKINSTEIN its alive I tell ya! ..and they are multiplying, states running around all over the fucking place

4) to 'HAPPINESS'

5) PRIVACY,

6) quartering soldiers in its home?

The list of SCROTUMUS MAXIMUS INTERPRETIVE PILE OF SHIT they feed us goes on and fucking on ad infinitum.

If you are looking for contradictions greater then any biblical proportions there you have it just examine SCROTUMUS MAXIMUS INTERPRETATIONS starting with the creation of this fraudulent bullshit from the very beginning.


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

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 exceeded their authority.

But who gives a fuck about logic reason and facts now that we have lefties and righties and so much fun masturbating with each other?

The supreme court has all that power because they created a nation state which separated the serfs and vassals from the mercan ruling class.









Musicmystery -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 10:26:42 AM)

Well, since the thread is the First vs. Second Amendments, in this case, the feds.



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:02:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, since the thread is the First vs. Second Amendments, in this case, the feds.



the second insures the first



Nnanji -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:09:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, since the thread is the First vs. Second Amendments, in this case, the feds.



the second insures the first

How much does it cost?



BamaD -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:10:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, since the thread is the First vs. Second Amendments, in this case, the feds.



the second insures the first


He cannot comprehend that they do not conflict.
Not only that none of the violence at this demonstration involved firearms.



tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:11:46 AM)

It shouldn't cost anything.



Nnanji -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:16:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

It shouldn't cost anything.

It was a joke that I of all people probably shouldn't have posted. To ensure is to make certain something exists. To insure is to take money now for a future financial benefit in the event of catastrophe.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:50:08 AM)

quote:

This is why supreme courts with so much power are there, isn't it - to interpret the Constitution?

Not according to the Constitution, no. That power is not mentioned anywhere, and it is one the Supreme Court granted itself by interpreting the Constitution (see Marbury v Madison). Sort of a "we can because we say we can" thing, and while there were those who vehemently opposed it, in the end the rest of the government went along with it.
What you need to keep in mind is that in Constitutional terms, the history of the U.S. is a history of work-arounds, a history of the federal government figuring out ways to get around the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution, and having themselves (the Supreme Court is part of the federal government) being able to decide what the Constitutional limits are in practice has allowed them to pretty much ignore those limitations at will.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:52:21 AM)

quote:

reasonable restrictions

Something not allowed for in the U.S. Constitution.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 11:56:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, since the thread is the First vs. Second Amendments, in this case, the feds.



the second insures the first

How much does it cost?

Cute. :)



Musicmystery -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:35:34 PM)

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.



tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:46:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.


What threats did they chant?



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 5:17:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.


I understand.

For me, it is for those very reasons, that no matter how vile the message or how far from my own personal beliefs the message lands; the right of those individuals to gather and protest is protected up to and until they violate the parameters set forth by our constitution.

What they say, what they believe is protected. We can't make distinctions between what speech is protected and what isn't because if today new-nazi's constitutional rights are ignored or trampled upon because we disagree with their message then who stops the government from deciding that any voice of dissent is unprotected?





BamaD -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 5:22:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.


I understand.

For me, it is for those very reasons, that no matter how vile the message or how far from my own personal beliefs the message lands; the right of those individuals to gather and protest is protected up to and until they violate the parameters set forth by our constitution.

What they say, what they believe is protected. We can't make distinctions between what speech is protected and what isn't because if today new-nazi's constitutional rights are ignored or trampled upon because we disagree with their message then who stops the government from deciding that any voice of dissent is unprotected?




As a couple of the founders pointed out, the 1st is the to protect unpopular speech, popular speech doesn't need it.



BoscoX -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 5:36:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.


What threats did they chant?



And why is supposed to be okay for armed leftists chanting their own threats to bust heads at such rallys, and to do the same sort of thing at unrelated and perfectly benign political events and speeches

Trump had to camcel speeches during his campaign because of such threats and violence, Ann Coulter has had to cancel at least one speech, as has Milo and others

These leftists aren't saints and any claims that they are protecting anything is propaganda



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 8:07:04 PM)

quote:

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech.

Of course it is, don't be so ridiculous.



tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 9:17:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech.

Of course it is, don't be so ridiculous.


He's an emotional basketcase.



Danemora -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 9:22:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Here's the thing.

If it was just protest or a demonstration, fine. I'd say "Hold your nose and let them march."

But for me, once they're armed and chanting things threatening other citizens, in this case Jews and people of color, that's not free speech. That's not a right. That's an armed threat.

You march in an armed militia, chanting threats, there's nothing peaceful about that.


What threats did they chant?



And why is supposed to be okay for armed leftists chanting their own threats to bust heads at such rallys, and to do the same sort of thing at unrelated and perfectly benign political events and speeches

Trump had to camcel speeches during his campaign because of such threats and violence, Ann Coulter has had to cancel at least one speech, as has Milo and others

These leftists aren't saints and any claims that they are protecting anything is propaganda


To be fair though, Bosco...MM steadily has maintained a pretty fair and balanced viewpoint by saying both sides behaved badly a number of times on the various threads pertaining to this topic. And I honestly agree. It was ugly all the way around on both sides the minute anyone went from non-violent to violent.



jlf1961 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 10:56:55 PM)

Considering how often I have been called a leftist (which I find funny as hell as a gun owner) my personal opinion is this:

I dont give a fuck which side of the line your philosophy is, if you take it to extremes, you need to be hung up by your gonads, then horsewhipped.

White supremacy is a stupid philosophy because there is no scientific, biblical or any proof whatsoever that whites are any better than any other race, and in point of fact, fair skinned people are actually more susceptible to certain cancers than others.

As far as socialism goes, the so called socialist countries have found that being the big security blanket of the people have damn near bankrupted their governments, how many socialist countries have instituted drastic cuts in social programs in order to keep the governments from bankruptcy?

I didnt dislike Obama because of his liberal views, I disliked the man because he did not have the fucking balls to stand up for the things he claimed he wanted to do.

I dont dislike Trump because he is a conservative, I dislike the man because he is a complete and utter asshole. He claims to have saved jobs, well the jobs he kept from going to some Asian country ended up in Mexico.

He seems to go out of his way to insult entire groups of people, then makes statements that "some may be good people."

In fact, all politicians regardless of their right or left beliefs run for office so they can sit on their ass, be paid by lobbyists and do absofuckingly nothing for their constituents and then have the balls to point to the other party and say "Its their fault your life sucks."

Its time to make America great again, and the first step is to actually elect people that want to get something accomplished and know the art of compromise.

The worst part of it is that the American people believe the shit that FOX news and MSNBC and other propaganda machines spew out in the name of their favorite political party.

So the problems in government is actually the fault of the American people who have lost the ability to think for themselves and will believe anything they see on the internet or hear coming from the mouth of some News anchor who is probably reading bullshit off a teleprompter.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875