Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

I could go on and on saying yes you are, but i'm not going to do that. but do you really think you have any kind of grasp of our legal system when you don't indicate any understanding of how it works and don't like how it works?

It's less about understanding how it currently works, and more about how it should work. There is a saying that the law has been ruined by lawyers, and I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly.

but it's not about how YOU think it should work versus what I might think. it's about how it actually worked and has worked for centuries.

I've never heard anyone say the law is ruined by lawyers. and i'd much rather lawyers deal with these issues than people who think it should be made over in their own image when that image doesn't even know what a common law legal system is.

I want an auto mechanic to fix my car, I don't want him to tell me where I can and cannot drive.

 

[Skylar]

your interpretation, as with most of your observations about the constitution simply aren't supported by well, anything.

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

 

[Skylar]

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

 

[martybegan]

Are you talking to me, or wry, or both?

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

Have I ever argued that rights are absolute? because your continued yammering about nukes and SAWs, and grenades seems to imply you think I did.

What is absolute is that if government wants to limit a right it has to do it in the most un-intrusive way possible, and it has to have clear, compelling, and damn serious reason to do it. Even more so if prior restraint is being involved, which gun control ends up being.

 

[Skylar]

Its fascinating. When you actually get down to what many conservatives *actually* mean by 'smaller government', what they are talking about is the supremacy of the 10th amendment over the 9th.

Almost always its the power of the State to strip the people of rights and liberties and turn those rights into crimes. Almost always, its the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Skylar]

you marty. i'm sorry, but you're so off base on this.

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

Have I ever argued that rights are absolute? because your continued yammering about nukes and SAWs, and grenades seems to imply you think I did.

I've 'implied' that your 'where is the crime' argument works just as well for nuclear weapons as it does for machine guns.

If you believe there is a distinction, show us. Don't tell us.

I've also 'implied' that you've openly supported the private ownership of the M249 machine gun that has a rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute. And by 'imply', I mean I directly quoting you supporting the private ownership of these weapons.

And you don't even deny it. Which makes your 'strawman' claims all the more bizarre. As I can quote you making the arguments I've attributed to you. I don't think you understand what a strawman actually is.

 

[martybegan]

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[

In no language whatsoever are the feds given the ability to regulate medical procedures like abortion. Thus it falls to the States, in particular their legislatures to figure out that mess. I am going by federalism, which is not pro-federal government in any shape or form. Again, I do not support bans on abortion prior to the 3rd trimester for any reason, what I fail to see is why Alabama and Kentucky are forced to agree with me.

You are far more pro government and anti-liberty than I am, and you don't even see it. I don't run to government to ruin people over not baking a cake.

 

[martybegan]

Its fascinating. When you actually get down to what many conservatives *actually* mean by 'smaller government', what they are talking about is the supremacy of the 10th amendment over the 9th.

Almost always its the power of the State to strip the people of rights and liberties and turn those rights into crimes. Almost always, its the tyranny of the majority.

That is the crux of the argument even if you dismiss it.

And the 9th and 10th have to duke it out with the other amendments as well, it isn't a clear choice for one of the other, or another.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am not.

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

Have I ever argued that rights are absolute? because your continued yammering about nukes and SAWs, and grenades seems to imply you think I did.

I've 'implied' that your 'where is the crime' argument works just as well for nuclear weapons as it does for machine guns.

If you believe there is a distinction, show us. Don't tell us.

I've also 'implied' that you've openly supported the private ownership of the M249 machine gun that has a rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute. And by 'imply', I mean I directly quoting you supporting the private ownership of these weapons.

And you don't even deny it. Which makes your 'strawman' claims all the more bizarre. As I can quote you making the arguments I've attributed to you. I don't think you understand what a strawman actually is.

I don't see the harm, considering 1) plenty of people own these things, even if heavily regulated, and 2) when was the last time one of these was used in an actual crime?

The nukes thing is just silly, because you can't get one, and a nuke has no use as a means of personal defense, or even use when called to belong to a militia.

And you have never seen fit to answer my question about why I should not be able to own a 9mm handgun with a 17 round clip, and carry it in public concealed.

 

[Skylar]

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration of rights requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power's interpreting the constitution and limiting government power.

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

 

[martybegan]

you haven't lost any rights. but feel free to bring a federal litigation and take it up to the supreme court if you think you have.

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

I am far more pro liberty than you are, because I don't go running to government to get people to act the way I want, live the way I want, and think the way I want. YOU are the tyrant here, not me. You want federal rule over all little aspects of our lives, and you want the rest of us to think just like you, act just like you, OR ELSE.

That you try to shroud me in an authoritarian sheet is both comical and sad.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, Julian...its far worse than you think. Marty believes that the 2nd amendment includes military full auto rifles, even M-249 machine guns that can put a bullet through the engine block of a car and fires at a rate of 725 rounds per minute.

That anyone should be able to buy.

I think we can all take a collective breath of relief that the meaningless standard of 'Marty citing Marty' has no particular relevance to the world that we live in.

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

Have I ever argued that rights are absolute? because your continued yammering about nukes and SAWs, and grenades seems to imply you think I did.

I've 'implied' that your 'where is the crime' argument works just as well for nuclear weapons as it does for machine guns.

If you believe there is a distinction, show us. Don't tell us.

I've also 'implied' that you've openly supported the private ownership of the M249 machine gun that has a rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute. And by 'imply', I mean I directly quoting you supporting the private ownership of these weapons.

And you don't even deny it. Which makes your 'strawman' claims all the more bizarre. As I can quote you making the arguments I've attributed to you. I don't think you understand what a strawman actually is.

I don't see the harm, considering 1) plenty of people own these things, even if heavily regulated, and 2) when was the last time one of these was used in an actual crime?

Who owns a M-249 machine gun? And how many is 'many'?

When was a SAW machine gun used in a crime? Rarely if ever.....as they aren't available to the general public. You're arguing that they should be.

And when was a Abrams Tank used to rob a convenience store. Using your horseshit logic, there's no harm in the public owning one of those either. Your logic doesn't work. Which is why you keep abandoning it when its applied consistently.

The nukes thing is just silly, because you can't get one, and a nuke has no use as a means of personal defense, or even use when called to belong to a militia.

Nukes have never been used to commit a crime in the US. And if they aren't to hurt you or anyone else, where is the crime?

Laughing........your logic is applied. Your logic falls to shit. Exactly as we both know it would.

And you have never seen fit to answer my question about why I should not be able to own a 9mm handgun with a 17 round clip, and carry it in public concealed.

Strawman. I've haven't said a thing about 9mm pistols. Yet again and again you've tried to attribute this argument to me.......fallaciously of course.

 

[martybegan]

If someone owns one of those and never uses it to harm you or anyone else, where is the crime?

One could use the same argument for nuclear weapons. If I have a tac nuke and i never use it to harm you or anyone, where is the crime?

Ergo......you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? If not, why not? Because it means every criteria of your 'where is the crime' standard above.

Again, SAWs and full rock and rolll examples are just strawmen, you don't want people to even have revolvers, so your argumentum ad abusrdum is moot.

I don't think 'strawman' means what you think it means. A strawman is refuting an argument that I'm attributing to you that you haven't made.

You have actually argued for private ownership of these machine guns. And I can quote you.

Shall I?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

Do you deny saying this? If no, so much for your 'strawman' nonsense.

Laughing...its like you just pluck the names of fallacies out of the air at random. And don't have the slightest clue what they mean. Thankfully, I do.

Have I ever argued that rights are absolute? because your continued yammering about nukes and SAWs, and grenades seems to imply you think I did.

I've 'implied' that your 'where is the crime' argument works just as well for nuclear weapons as it does for machine guns.

If you believe there is a distinction, show us. Don't tell us.

I've also 'implied' that you've openly supported the private ownership of the M249 machine gun that has a rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute. And by 'imply', I mean I directly quoting you supporting the private ownership of these weapons.

And you don't even deny it. Which makes your 'strawman' claims all the more bizarre. As I can quote you making the arguments I've attributed to you. I don't think you understand what a strawman actually is.

I don't see the harm, considering 1) plenty of people own these things, even if heavily regulated, and 2) when was the last time one of these was used in an actual crime?

Who owns a M-249 machine gun? And how many is 'many'?

When was a SAW machine gun used in a crime? Rarely if ever.....as they aren't available to the general public. You're arguing that they should be.

And when was a Abrams Tank used to rob a convenience store. Using your horseshit logic, there's no harm in the public owning one of those either. Your logic doesn't work. Which is why you keep abandoning it when its applied consistently.

The nukes thing is just silly, because you can't get one, and a nuke has no use as a means of personal defense, or even use when called to belong to a militia.

Nukes have never been used to commit a crime in the US. And if they aren't to hurt you or anyone else, where is the crime?

Laughing........your logic is applied. Your logic falls to shit. Exactly as we both know it would.

And you have never seen fit to answer my question about why I should not be able to own a 9mm handgun with a 17 round clip, and carry it in public concealed.

Strawman. I've haven't said a thing about 9mm pistols. Yet again and again you've tried to attribute this argument to me.......fallaciously of course.

AK-47's are not available in France, those assholes seemed to be able to get their hands on them.

All you are doing is just using an absurd argument to avoid answering my question. Why can't you answer my question? I've answered yours, you just don't like the answer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

Thank you!

 

[Skylar]

Marty is complaining about 'losing rights'? The same 'Let's shit on liberty' soul who argued, straight faced....that the federal government isn't required to protect, recognize or be limited by the rights of the people? The same soul that made up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' for rights, where unless a right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected?

That Marty? One of the most anti-rights, pro government power posters on this board.....is lamenting about losing his rights?

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

The 9th recognizes unenumerated rights. You insist they don't exist, that ONLY those rights that are explicitly written down are protected.

That's horseshit and you know it. As when I challenge you to show me where int he constitution your 'enumeration of rights' requirement is in the constitution.....you refuse. You change the topic. You start babbling about 9mm pistols.

You know your imaginary 'requirement of enumeration of rights' doesn't exist in the Constitution. You know the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of right. Yet you continue to argue for both. All to justify the States having the power to strip people of their rights and turn those rights into crimes.

As anti-liberty, pro government power posters like yourself are prone to do.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

Here's a little history for you. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would be used as justification to argue that ONLY those rights in the Bill or Rights existed. Many of the founders argued that no one would be so foolish as to believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list, that how could the government take action against all the *other* rights held by the people when it didn't have the power to do so?

And yet here you are. With you making the *exact* argument the opponents of the Bill of Rights feared some idiot would make. The 9th amendment was a compromise, a demonstration that the rights reserved to the people were vast. And that the Bill of Rights didn't encompass them all. So of course you ignore the 9th too.

The Constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. You don't understand what rights are. You don't understand what the Constitution is. Making 'Marty citing Marty' a standard that's worse than useless.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

The 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. And limits States when they attempt to violate the rights of federal citizens.

Making your 'you forgot the 10th amendment' argument useless gibberish. As the States don't have the power to violate the rights of citizens. As the 14th amendment makes clear.

And you know this. Yet you argue against it in favor of the States having the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and the federal government not

As anti-liberty, pro government posters like yourself are prone to do.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. You love government coercion. You despise rights. And you'll ignore any part of the constitutoin, any amendment, even the founders themselves in your quest to empower the States to strip people of their liberties and turn rights into crimes.

No thank you.

 

[martybegan]

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

Thank you!

It's bullshit when its used to justify end runs around the rest of the document.

 

[martybegan]

Where the hell have I been posting pro government, anti-rights stuff?

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

The 9th recognizes unenumerated rights. You insist they don't exist, that ONLY those rights that are explicitly written down are protected.

That's horseshit and you know it. As when I challenge you to show me where int he constitution your 'enumeration of rights' requirement is in the constitution.....you refuse. You change the topic. You start babbling about 9mm pistols.

You know your imaginary 'requirement of enumeration of rights' doesn't exist in the Constitution. You know the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of right. Yet you continue to argue for both. All to justify the States having the power to strip people of their rights and turn those rights into crimes.

As anti-liberty, pro government power posters like yourself are prone to do.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

Here's a little history for you. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would be used as justification to argue that ONLY those rights in the Bill or Rights existed. Many of the founders argued that no one would be so foolish as to believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list, that how could the government take action against all the *other* rights held by the people when it didn't have the power to do so?

And yet here you are. With you making the *exact* argument the opponents of the Bill of Rights feared some idiot would make. The 9th amendment was a compromise, a demonstration that the rights reserved to the people were vast. And that the Bill of Rights didn't encompass them all. So of course you ignore the 9th too.

The Constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. You don't understand what rights are. You don't understand what the Constitution is. Making 'Marty citing Marty' a standard that's worse than useless.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

The 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. And limits States when they attempt to violate the rights of federal citizens.

Making your 'you forgot the 10th amendment' argument useless gibberish. As the States don't have the power to violate the rights of citizens. As the 14th amendment makes clear.

And you know this. Yet you argue against it in favor of the States having the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and the federal government not

As anti-liberty, pro government posters like yourself are prone to do.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. You love government coercion. You despise rights. And you'll ignore any part of the constitutoin, any amendment, even the founders themselves in your quest to empower the States to strip people of their liberties and turn rights into crimes.

No thank you.

it says they can exist, it doesn't say some court can decide something is a right out of thin air. Again, all of the listed rights were at some time voted on, the "rights" you claim were never voted on, they were created out of the wishful thinking of some crackpot justices.

And again you keep mistaking federalism for authoritarianism.

Now go back to jerking off over some baker getting ruined over not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[Skylar]

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

Thank you!

It's bullshit when its used to justify end runs around the rest of the document.

Bullshit like your imaginary 'enumeration of rights' requirement for rights to be protected?

You know, the non-existent requirement you pulled sideways out of your ass, can't find any justification for in the Constitution, and must ignore the 9th amendment, the 14th amendment and Federalist Paper 78 to cling to?

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. As your ilk do, you promote the 10th amendment over the 9th. Government power over the rights of the people.The exact opposite of the facade you pretend to support.

 

[Ravi]

Where you made up a completely imaginary 'requirement' that rights must be enumerated in the constituion to be protected. And that unless the right is explicitly written down in the constitution, it isn't protected.

And the State GOVERNMENT can strip the individual of that right and turn it into a crime. I believe the example you gave of such was abortion. Where you argued that a woman should not have the right nor liberty to make that decision for herself as the 'right to abortion' wasn't written down in the constitution and thus didn't exist.

And that the State GOVERNMENT should be able to make that decision for her. On abortion and ANY other right that isn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.

I've never met a poster more pro-government power and anti-liberty than you. Nor one who has a poorer command of what rights actually are. Or is more willing to ignore the 9th amendment. Which makes your mewling about how your rights have been taken away all the more bizarre.

The 9th amendment doesn't say you can create rights out of thin air, and the federal government can thus force everyone else to agree that something is a right.

The 9th amendment says, without ambiguity, that the enumeration of rights in the constitution doesn't mean that there aren't reserve rights still held by the people:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Obliterating your made up nonsense that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution to be protected. And you can't show us anywhere in the constitution where any such requirement exists. While I can show you the 9th amendment refuting the concept.

You hallucinated your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. And then laughably tried to use your hallucination to strip people of rights and allow the States to turn them into crimes. Exactly as I described.

And you keep forgetting the 10th amendment.

Nope. I simply remember the 14th:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to strip people of rights. In fact, the 14th amendment explicitly forbids the States from doing this.

And you *know this*. Yet being the rabidly anti-liberty, pro government power poster that you are, you ignore the 14th amendment, make up imaginary 'enumeration requirements' that simply don't exist, ignore the Federalist Papers recognizing the judicial power

As I said, people like yourself hate liberty. They despise freedom. They loath people being able to make these choices for themselves. And will ignore anything, even the constitution itself, if it allows them to empower the State to strip people of their constitutional rights and turn them into crimes. As its government power that you and your ilk believe in: State government power.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The 9th doesn't say that some court can out of thin air make a right protected constitutionally.

The 9th recognizes unenumerated rights. You insist they don't exist, that ONLY those rights that are explicitly written down are protected.

That's horseshit and you know it. As when I challenge you to show me where int he constitution your 'enumeration of rights' requirement is in the constitution.....you refuse. You change the topic. You start babbling about 9mm pistols.

You know your imaginary 'requirement of enumeration of rights' doesn't exist in the Constitution. You know the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of right. Yet you continue to argue for both. All to justify the States having the power to strip people of their rights and turn those rights into crimes.

As anti-liberty, pro government power posters like yourself are prone to do.

Here is a bit of history for you. ALL rights that are explicitly protected in the constitution were voted on in some shape or form. ALL OF THEM. The ones made up by judicial hocus pocus were decided by fiat.

Here's a little history for you. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it would be used as justification to argue that ONLY those rights in the Bill or Rights existed. Many of the founders argued that no one would be so foolish as to believe that the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list, that how could the government take action against all the *other* rights held by the people when it didn't have the power to do so?

And yet here you are. With you making the *exact* argument the opponents of the Bill of Rights feared some idiot would make. The 9th amendment was a compromise, a demonstration that the rights reserved to the people were vast. And that the Bill of Rights didn't encompass them all. So of course you ignore the 9th too.

The Constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights. The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. You don't understand what rights are. You don't understand what the Constitution is. Making 'Marty citing Marty' a standard that's worse than useless.

The 14th forces the States to follow the rights given in the constitution, something you only support in part,because NYC clearly denies me my 2nd amendment rights, and you are OK with that.

The 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. And limits States when they attempt to violate the rights of federal citizens.

Making your 'you forgot the 10th amendment' argument useless gibberish. As the States don't have the power to violate the rights of citizens. As the 14th amendment makes clear.

And you know this. Yet you argue against it in favor of the States having the authority to violate the rights of citizens, and the federal government not

As anti-liberty, pro government posters like yourself are prone to do.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. You love government coercion. You despise rights. And you'll ignore any part of the constitutoin, any amendment, even the founders themselves in your quest to empower the States to strip people of their liberties and turn rights into crimes.

No thank you.

it says they can exist, it doesn't say some court can decide something is a right out of thin air. Again, all of the listed rights were at some time voted on, the "rights" you claim were never voted on, they were created out of the wishful thinking of some crackpot justices.

And again you keep mistaking federalism for authoritarianism.

Now go back to jerking off over some baker getting ruined over not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

The court doesn't decide something is a right out of thin air. The court decides that a right has been violated. You are thicker than shit.

 

[martybegan]

GW is part of the vision statement which is the Preamble to COTUS. I did not set the bar, those who wrote and signed off on the COTUS used the phrase in the Preamble and in clause 1 of sec. 8 in Art. I.

Thus, the Congress has the authority to set the bar for parameters on what is the GW, not you, and such guidelines may include practical applications in the law of what is needed to fulfill the vision the Founders / Signers of the COTUS invisioned centuries ago.

I'm pretty certain that vision did not include the Right of every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a gun capable of firing 45 - 60 RPM (drunks and the insane lived back then too). Just imagine how different the world might be if on July 11, 1804 Hamilton had shown up at the duel armed with a Tec 10 while Burr had the standard dueling pistol.

The people were trusted at the time with the most advanced weapons available at the time. And considering I can't even get a fucking revolver to concealed carry in NYC, your blathering about "scary guns" is moot.

General Welfare bullshit cannot be used to suppress existing defined explicit rights.

I don't find the Preamble of the Constitution and the idea of promoting the General Welfare to be.....bullshit.

Thank you!

It's bullshit when its used to justify end runs around the rest of the document.

Bullshit like your imaginary 'enumeration of rights' requirement for rights to be protected?

You know, the non-existent requirement you pulled sideways out of your ass, can't find any justification for in the Constitution, and must ignore the 9th amendment, the 14th amendment and Federalist Paper 78 to cling to?

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit. As your ilk do, you promote the 10th amendment over the 9th. Government power over the rights of the people.The exact opposite of the facade you pretend to support.

For them to be protected federally, and for the federal government to step in and stop a State government from legislating as it sees fit, yes they have to be enumerated. The federal government is denying the State government its rights under the 10th amendment.