I don't agree that both sides are being unreasonable.
I'm being charitable to account for the factions of both sides who oppose literally any concession to the 'other side'.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
I don't agree that both sides are being unreasonable.
c_hawkbob wrote:If you want to talk about original intent the 2nd amendment was intended to allow small townships rural communities to maintain a "well regulated militia" so that they may defend themselves as it could take a very long time in those days for a protective response from the federal government. Not to arm individuals with enough weaponry to wipe out small townships and rural communities.
This "misunderstanding" of the constitution, as you put it, is every bit as much yours as the other side of the argument's.
NorthHawk wrote:It's interesting to note that there was a prior draft of the 2nd Amendment:
Original proposal
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Final draft
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first talked about country and the second about a State.
So who would regulate such a militia as it's clear they didn't intend to have roving bands of self defined militia?
Obviously it would be the government.
The logical conclusion is the 2nd Amendment wasn't provided as a means to protect its citizens against a National Gov't nor a State Gov't, rather it was for protection from outside forces such as Britain returning or another
force that might want to invade. As well, it seems that it would give the State a right to form a militia to guard against encroachment of the Federal Gov't on State's rights and thus the change of wording from Country to State.
But nobody really knows what they intended and it's been debated for a long time and will continue to do so, it would seem.
burrrton wrote:Supreme Court jurisprudence has clearly established what the 2A means. There's no need to debate it further unless you have some nuanced issue that hasn't been answered by them six ways to Sunday.
Some of us will not accept everything the Supreme Court decides and would rather look to the original intent of The Bill of Rights and its founding principles.
They are declaring corporations as individuals
Aseahawkfan wrote:Some of us will not accept everything the Supreme Court decides and would rather look to the original intent of The Bill of Rights and its founding principles. The Supreme Court is heavily politicized and corrupt at this point. They are declaring corporations as individuals and using The Commerce Clause in a far too wide a manner.
yeah, if you totally distort not just the meaning of the words the U.S. Constitution was written with but also the spirit in which they were written.
Burton, the people with whom you are trying to defend actively trying to destroy our great nation.
It is a totally outrageous lie, but when you have people such as Burton and River Dog who buy into this B.S. it really makes me sick.
Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Breitbart but not limited to those two have started claiming that the shooting was actually carried out by some Islamic Terrorists that were working by the F.B.I. and that the "goal" of the shooting was so that the Federal Government would have an excuse to start confiscating the weapons of law biding American citizens. YEP, they actually went there, they really did.
Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:Now, back to the topic that this thread is about, the massacre in Las Vegas;
Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Breitbart but not limited to those two have started claiming that the shooting was actually carried out by some Islamic Terrorists that were working by the F.B.I. and that the "goal" of the shooting was so that the Federal Government would have an excuse to start confiscating the weapons of law biding American citizens. YEP, they actually went there, they really did.
It is a totally outrageous lie, but when you have people such as Burton and River Dog who buy into this B.S. it really makes me sick.
I can hear RD complaining from here, but doesn't he realize if he fails to stand up and speak out about BALD FACE LIES such as these and many, many other out right deceptions then he is giving his stamp of approval. You know, he probably believes that there were some "good people" who were marching with their Tiki Torches and chanting "blood and soil" and insults against people of the Jewish faith. Many of those right wing racists also carried American flags that the marchers had desecrated by putting swastikas on them. Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.
The same people who defend these racist pukes such as that Spencer guy have a hissy fit when a few sports figures have been expressing their freedom of speech by "taking a knee".
Aseahawkfan wrote:Wow. Now that is a nut job troll right there.
Seahawks4Ever wrote: Many of those right wing racists also carried American flags that the marchers had desecrated by putting swastikas on them. Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.
I HATE what is going on in this country
Seahawks4Ever wrote:RD, sorry a missed one of your fellow coneheads, thanx for pointing him out LOL
Look, I HATE what is going on in this country but what I REALLY HATE is that the streets are not filled with people protesting this administration.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:I AM for freedom of speech, just because I pointed out that some of the RACIST that you want to CHAMPION had put SWASTIKAS on OLD GLORY. Yes, they has a RIGHT to do it but it DOES desecrate it. You have every right to your racist hate speech unless you start promoting the violent over throw of the United States Government. You sir and your ilk have danced right up to that line so don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it.
"Patriotism is the LAST REFUGE of a SCOUNDREL" -Benjamin Franklin . That's what I think of every time you phony patriots open up your pie hole.
P.S. Asshoes such as yourself have been denigrating and threatening survivors of the Las Vegas shooting calling them "actors" and phony victims. Why do I have the feeling that YOU are one of those PUKES who are doing this??????????????????????
The TRUTH is Trump and fellow FACISTS, such as yourself, are DESTROYING our Republic and YOU are being called out on it!
If I had my druthers I would wish that Kapernick had found some OTHER way of protesting and I wish that others would not have followed suit BUT I will fight to the death to defend their RIGHT to do so.
subjective - who determines what's subversive or seditious? The Brits thought our founding fathers were subversive and seditious.I feel the same about other OFFENSIVE speech but NOT SUBVERSIVE or SEDITIOUS speech.
Again, your facts are a little off. They do not have a RIGHT to protest. They have the RIGHT to not be prosecuted by the federal government for their speech whether it is hateful or not. They can be fired by their employer, placed mandates on by their employer and all kinds of other things. Their right to protest is only allowed by their employer at this point and not by the government. I also have the right NOT to partake in their protest and to protest in my own way - which I do. I am not shouting you down or calling you names because you don't see things my way but that doesn't stop you from doing it to me because I don't share your view. Hmmm... Ever think about taking a civics lesson at a local college or online?Just as players have a RIGHT to protest during the National Anthem people also have the RIGHT to say that they find that form of speech OFFENSIVE, actions do have consequences after all, I draw the line at saying that the players should be forced to stand or not protest.
The owners don't have to. The players are cutting their own salaries and don't even know it yet. When the players who don't want any part of this issue start losing pay, then you'll see the issue resolved among themselves. The owners will continue to be rich but the players will suffer a big salary cap hit in the coming years.
Rocky Blier, the famed FB of the Steelers brought up an interesting angle, since they are "at work" he says they don't have a "right" to protest since none of us at a "regular job" would NEVER be allowed to protest or we would be FIRED. How true, how true and guess what? These knee taking players CAN BE FIRED for their protests!! BUT! Does any owner or the NFL really want to go there?? Surely they don't or they already would have. Can you imagine 3/4 of the players walking away from the sport right in the middle of the season??? It would take a few years to get the "product" back up to the level of play as it is now but would there be any fans left???
Again we agree. Wow, now we are on a roll.
I REALLY believe that the players should find another way to make their voice heard, a more productive way that doesn't pizz off millions of people many who are fans and of course many who are not.
NO! Again, they do not have a right to do it, they have the right not to be prosecuted by the Government if they do, do it.But, they do have the RIGHT to do it.
Again with the ad hominem attacks. Morally, intellectually bankrupting yourself in any disccussion or argument. Just like the Russian Collusion case, this could be a boomerang effect on you.
Does THAT clear it up for you? I am sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, maybe you should have paid attention in school instead of skipping out to smoke, drink, drug, and masterbate to a Ronald Reagan poster...
Now I'm a fascist and Trump is too.
burrrton wrote:
No no, id- you're a "FACIST"- you only like people with faces.
idhawkman wrote:sooner or later I'm going to grow tired of trying to straighten this guy out but posts like this make me laugh so much that it might take a while.
RiverDog wrote:
Yea, I don't understand what S4E is up to. He's behaving so irrationally that Cbob has started a thread by writing him an open letter asking him to back off. I enjoy a good, healthy debate and I don't mind a moderate name calling here or there, but this guy has really gone off the rails.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 130 guests