Obama Loses again

[bedowin62]

not even close left-wing nutjobs

th emost misinterpreted is the 14th Amendment; which has been bastardized to mean anybody dropping a baby on US soil has a new American citizen for a child

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, no.

The country DOES want to ban them.

The MAJORITY of people in this COUNTRY doesn't want assault weapons in the hands of nuts.

Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence

The problem is the MINORITY of people that want the opposite.

Even your conservative Presidents wanted them banned. Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Actually no. The problem is that pesky second amendment which gets in your way. The majority does not have a right to remove the rights of the minority no matter how much they dislike those rights rights - see gay marriage. State votes to ban it - tough shit. Rights are not up for a vote - period.

The "Pesky" 2nd Amendment is the most misinterpreted of all the amendments.

It was never meant to have people hunt, defend their houses, settle differences, go sport shooting, overthrow the government and commit suicide. It WAS meant to have a military made up of "part time" soldiers at the ready should the need arise. Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time. It's also why there are some folks that want it re-written because of the "inconvenient" language. A well funded gun lobby in this country is responsible for that. They have corrupted the meaning so much they have denigrated the police to a point that now laws on the books favor "vigilantism", which is probably also the goal of the wealthy in this country because they loathe taxes that much.

That posted, the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT even own guns. And while the majority favor some sort of right for the average citizen to be able to keep guns, they do not favor what we have now.

What a load of nonsense. I don't expect anything else considering that it has been proven to you over and over again what the militia is and was. You ignore the entire meaning of the word to change the second into something that you like rather than what it is.

YOU have corrupted the meaning to the point that you don't even recognize it anymore. I wont bother showing you again what a dozen other posters have shown you as you will continue to lie about the facts.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, common language disagrees with you and law disagrees with you. You have lost your war against the second amendment rights that are protected in the constitution. Either get another amendment to change it or go pound sand - gun rights are a reality that you are not going to be able to change any other way.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Actually, no.

The country DOES want to ban them.

The MAJORITY of people in this COUNTRY doesn't want assault weapons in the hands of nuts.

Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence

The problem is the MINORITY of people that want the opposite.

Even your conservative Presidents wanted them banned. Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Actually no. The problem is that pesky second amendment which gets in your way. The majority does not have a right to remove the rights of the minority no matter how much they dislike those rights rights - see gay marriage. State votes to ban it - tough shit. Rights are not up for a vote - period.

The "Pesky" 2nd Amendment is the most misinterpreted of all the amendments.

It was never meant to have people hunt, defend their houses, settle differences, go sport shooting, overthrow the government and commit suicide. It WAS meant to have a military made up of "part time" soldiers at the ready should the need arise. Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time. It's also why there are some folks that want it re-written because of the "inconvenient" language. A well funded gun lobby in this country is responsible for that. They have corrupted the meaning so much they have denigrated the police to a point that now laws on the books favor "vigilantism", which is probably also the goal of the wealthy in this country because they loathe taxes that much.

That posted, the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT even own guns. And while the majority favor some sort of right for the average citizen to be able to keep guns, they do not favor what we have now.

You write: "Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time."

This is especially risible in the face of Heller and Chicago.

Clayton Jones makes the same kind of baby talk, destroyed here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-27.html#post8786096

You've already conceded that at the very least the people do in fact have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defense of the several free states and the people thereof. So your argument is that the people do not have the legitimate right under the umbrella of the Second Amendment to use those very same arms for the purpose of self-defense in the face of common criminality?

"Mother, quick, toss me the fork! He's breaking through the door! No! No! The one in plain sight on the counter beneath the gun rack!"

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator, not the state.

The ultimate object of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ability of the people to effectively defend their lives, their liberty and their property against marauding tribes in the state of nature or to put down invading or usurpative factions of government in the state of civilization under the rule of law. The individual's right to keep and bear arms and use them to defend his life and such in the face of criminality is axiomatic.

In other words, the people possess the right in the state of nature, and they do not surrender it under the terms of any legitimate social contract, as the right is not endowed by the state.

For those of you who are ignorant about the historical and legal pronouncements of colonial statutory and common law predicated on the ontological justification of natural law, that is self-evident from the sociopolitical theory expressed in the Declaration of Independence, alone, on which this nation was founded.

The same is true about all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Why were a significant number of prominent Americans wary of including a bill of rights in the Constitution, Sallow? How would the Constitution without the Bill of Rights make all those arms possessed by the people disappear or, for that matter, make the practical substance of any one of the other inalienable rights of man disappear? Where in the Constitution proper is the exercise of any one of the inalienable rights of man prohibited? And how would you ascribe your alleged intent to a nonexistent amendment of the Constitution had a bill of rights not been attached to the same in the first place?

The answer to any one of these questions, especially the first, exposes your claim for the historically illiterate and asinine mendacity that it is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

not even close left-wing nutjobs

th emost misinterpreted is the 14th Amendment; which has been bastardized to mean anybody dropping a baby on US soil has a new American citizen for a child

Indeed, speaking of which. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: A Critique of the Chin Argument

A little post-construction judicial activism.

 

[PredFan]

I was at the gun show last Saturday and I went to the NRA booth there. I have them some more money.

The NRA is the only organization I give money to. The reason is that it is very evident that they put my money to good use.

And the NRA is counting on suckers to fork over their cash with their well orchestrated campaigns of paranoia. That's why they are so good at fear mongering, to get willing dupes to empty their wallets for them and that's what they are all about, fleecing their flock.

As a hunter and gun owner I ditched those nuts back in the 1990's. They once were a real educational and sportsmen's organization, ONCE. The NRA since then have become the tin foil hat crowd and the majority of gun owners don't belong to that outfit.

Your ranting and name calling is moot pal. They have put my money to very good use and I can't say that about any other organization, especially the government. The NRA has been kicking ass and taking names of late, all the while watching their membership grow.

Go ahead and spout your abusive nonsense, I couldn't care less.

 

[PredFan]

Nutters applaud any instance of the. GOP obstructing the Obama administration's effort to govern.

Yup, and thanks to us, what could have been a disastrous 6 years has been tempered to only a mildly damaging one.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yeah, you gun owners are some brave, proud heroes. You've been living for six years under an unconstitutional despotic Marxist Fascist Kenyan Muslim Sharia dictatorship (or whatever the fuck you people believe) and instead of utilizing your God-given 2nd Amendment rights to restore American freedom, as you claim is the reason that you have those guns in the first place (you aren't stalking game in the frozen foods aisle at Wal-Mart), you all just pat George Zimmerman on the head and thank him for killing yet another young black man.

When are any of you ever going to defend anyone's freedom?

You know, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are, thankfully, sane, reasoning individuals. You, on the other hand, should probably not even be permitted to own or carry a dull spoon.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yeah, you gun owners are some brave, proud heroes. You've been living for six years under an unconstitutional despotic Marxist Fascist Kenyan Muslim Sharia dictatorship (or whatever the fuck you people believe) and instead of utilizing your God-given 2nd Amendment rights to restore American freedom, as you claim is the reason that you have those guns in the first place (you aren't stalking game in the frozen foods aisle at Wal-Mart), you all just pat George Zimmerman on the head and thank him for killing yet another young black man.

When are any of you ever going to defend anyone's freedom?

Many of us do. We do so through our votes and our voice. Most of us are not morons such as yourself, advocating violence as a solution before all other avenues have been thoroughly exhausted.

We are nowhere near the need for violence yet people like you keep demanding that because we protect the right, we must then somehow utilize it before the required time. How does it feel to advocate for killing?

We are also able to discern pure, hate-filled incitement to violence and to respond appropriately. But this one makes it clear that his ilk are not capable of rational consideration of facts, nor able to judge and appropriately respond to the factors in play.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just waiting to hear it was all Bush's fault.

 

[Sallow]

Actually no. The problem is that pesky second amendment which gets in your way. The majority does not have a right to remove the rights of the minority no matter how much they dislike those rights rights - see gay marriage. State votes to ban it - tough shit. Rights are not up for a vote - period.

The "Pesky" 2nd Amendment is the most misinterpreted of all the amendments.

It was never meant to have people hunt, defend their houses, settle differences, go sport shooting, overthrow the government and commit suicide. It WAS meant to have a military made up of "part time" soldiers at the ready should the need arise. Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time. It's also why there are some folks that want it re-written because of the "inconvenient" language. A well funded gun lobby in this country is responsible for that. They have corrupted the meaning so much they have denigrated the police to a point that now laws on the books favor "vigilantism", which is probably also the goal of the wealthy in this country because they loathe taxes that much.

That posted, the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT even own guns. And while the majority favor some sort of right for the average citizen to be able to keep guns, they do not favor what we have now.

You write: "Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time."

This is especially risible in the face of Heller and Chicago.

Clayton Jones makes the same kind of baby talk, destroyed here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-27.html#post8786096

You've already conceded that at the very least the people do in fact have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defense of the several free states and the people thereof. So your argument is that the people do not have the legitimate right under the umbrella of the Second Amendment to use those very same arms for the purpose of self-defense in the face of common criminality?

(Mother, toss me the fork! No! No! The one on the counter beneath the gun rack!)

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator, not the state.

The ultimate object of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ability of the people to effectively defend their lives, their liberty and their property against marauding tribes in the state of nature or to put down invading or usurpative factions of government in the state of civilization under the rule of law. The individual's right to keep and bear arms and use them to defend his life and such in the face of criminality is axiomatic.

In other words, the people possess the right in the state of nature, and they do not surrender it under the terms of any legitimate social contract, as the right is not endowed by the state.

For those of you who are ignorant about the historical and legal pronouncements of colonial statutory and common law predicated on the ontological justification of natural law, that is self-evident from the sociopolitical theory expressed in the Declaration of Independence, alone, on which this nation was founded.

The same is true about all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Why were a significant number of prominent Americans wary of including a bill of rights in the Constitution, Sallow? How would the Constitution without the Bill of Rights make all those arms possessed by the people disappear or, for that matter, make the practical substance of any one of the other inalienable rights of man disappear? Where in the Constitution proper is the exercise of any one of the inalienable rights of man prohibited? And how would you ascribe your alleged intent to a nonexistent amendment of the Constitution had a bill of rights not been attached to the same in the first place?

The answer to any one of these questions, especially the first, exposes your claim for the historically illiterate and asinine mendacity that it is.

Horse hockey and tripe populated with personal insults does not a good argument make.

But I am sure you are feeling better, right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The "Pesky" 2nd Amendment is the most misinterpreted of all the amendments.

It was never meant to have people hunt, defend their houses, settle differences, go sport shooting, overthrow the government and commit suicide. It WAS meant to have a military made up of "part time" soldiers at the ready should the need arise. Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time. It's also why there are some folks that want it re-written because of the "inconvenient" language. A well funded gun lobby in this country is responsible for that. They have corrupted the meaning so much they have denigrated the police to a point that now laws on the books favor "vigilantism", which is probably also the goal of the wealthy in this country because they loathe taxes that much.

That posted, the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT even own guns. And while the majority favor some sort of right for the average citizen to be able to keep guns, they do not favor what we have now.

You write: "Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time."

This is especially risible in the face of Heller and Chicago.

Clayton Jones makes the same kind of baby talk, destroyed here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-27.html#post8786096

You've already conceded that at the very least the people do in fact have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defense of the several free states and the people thereof. So your argument is that the people do not have the legitimate right under the umbrella of the Second Amendment to use those very same arms for the purpose of self-defense in the face of common criminality?

(Mother, toss me the fork! No! No! The one on the counter beneath the gun rack!)

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator, not the state.

The ultimate object of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ability of the people to effectively defend their lives, their liberty and their property against marauding tribes in the state of nature or to put down invading or usurpative factions of government in the state of civilization under the rule of law. The individual's right to keep and bear arms and use them to defend his life and such in the face of criminality is axiomatic.

In other words, the people possess the right in the state of nature, and they do not surrender it under the terms of any legitimate social contract, as the right is not endowed by the state.

For those of you who are ignorant about the historical and legal pronouncements of colonial statutory and common law predicated on the ontological justification of natural law, that is self-evident from the sociopolitical theory expressed in the Declaration of Independence, alone, on which this nation was founded.

The same is true about all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Why were a significant number of prominent Americans wary of including a bill of rights in the Constitution, Sallow? How would the Constitution without the Bill of Rights make all those arms possessed by the people disappear or, for that matter, make the practical substance of any one of the other inalienable rights of man disappear? Where in the Constitution proper is the exercise of any one of the inalienable rights of man prohibited? And how would you ascribe your alleged intent to a nonexistent amendment of the Constitution had a bill of rights not been attached to the same in the first place?

The answer to any one of these questions, especially the first, exposes your claim for the historically illiterate and asinine mendacity that it is.

Horse hockey and tripe populated with personal insults does not a good argument make.

But I am sure you are feeling better, right?

More dissembling in the face of incontrovertible facts and logic . . . by one who is obviously a sociopath.

Can we get an answer from you to any on of the above questions?

*crickets chirping*

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If Joycelyn Elders can still get appointed to Surgeon General after her awful views were made known, Obama does not have anything to worry about.

Joycelyn Elders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minnie Joycelyn Elders (born Minnie Lee Jones on August 13, 1933) is an American pediatrician and public health administrator. She was a vice admiral in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the first African American appointed as Surgeon General of the United States. Elders is best known for her frank discussion of her views on controversial issues such as drug legalization and distributing contraception in schools.[1] She was fired mid-term in December 1994 amidst controversy. She is currently a professor emerita of pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually no. The problem is that pesky second amendment which gets in your way. The majority does not have a right to remove the rights of the minority no matter how much they dislike those rights rights - see gay marriage. State votes to ban it - tough shit. Rights are not up for a vote - period.

The "Pesky" 2nd Amendment is the most misinterpreted of all the amendments.

It was never meant to have people hunt, defend their houses, settle differences, go sport shooting, overthrow the government and commit suicide. It WAS meant to have a military made up of "part time" soldiers at the ready should the need arise. Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time. It's also why there are some folks that want it re-written because of the "inconvenient" language. A well funded gun lobby in this country is responsible for that. They have corrupted the meaning so much they have denigrated the police to a point that now laws on the books favor "vigilantism", which is probably also the goal of the wealthy in this country because they loathe taxes that much.

That posted, the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT even own guns. And while the majority favor some sort of right for the average citizen to be able to keep guns, they do not favor what we have now.

You write: "Which is why you folks bifurcate it ALL the time."

This is especially risible in the face of Heller and Chicago.

Clayton Jones makes the same kind of baby talk, destroyed here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-is-not-a-living-organism-27.html#post8786096

You've already conceded that at the very least the people do in fact have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defense of the several free states and the people thereof. So your argument is that the people do not have the legitimate right under the umbrella of the Second Amendment to use those very same arms for the purpose of self-defense in the face of common criminality?

(Mother, toss me the fork! No! No! The one on the counter beneath the gun rack!)

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of natural law endowed by the Creator, not the state.

The ultimate object of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ability of the people to effectively defend their lives, their liberty and their property against marauding tribes in the state of nature or to put down invading or usurpative factions of government in the state of civilization under the rule of law. The individual's right to keep and bear arms and use them to defend his life and such in the face of criminality is axiomatic.

In other words, the people possess the right in the state of nature, and they do not surrender it under the terms of any legitimate social contract, as the right is not endowed by the state.

For those of you who are ignorant about the historical and legal pronouncements of colonial statutory and common law predicated on the ontological justification of natural law, that is self-evident from the sociopolitical theory expressed in the Declaration of Independence, alone, on which this nation was founded.

The same is true about all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Why were a significant number of prominent Americans wary of including a bill of rights in the Constitution, Sallow? How would the Constitution without the Bill of Rights make all those arms possessed by the people disappear or, for that matter, make the practical substance of any one of the other inalienable rights of man disappear? Where in the Constitution proper is the exercise of any one of the inalienable rights of man prohibited? And how would you ascribe your alleged intent to a nonexistent amendment of the Constitution had a bill of rights not been attached to the same in the first place?

The answer to any one of these questions, especially the first, exposes your claim for the historically illiterate and asinine mendacity that it is.

Excellent post - I owe you some rep for this one