Roy Moore: "Immorality Sweeps Over The Land"

Not after either. Scotus got it wrong. It's not the first time. I can think of two others.

So are you saying States can ban gun ownership?
Dude, you are so far afield it isn't even funny.

Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace. The Founding Fathers believed the people themselves were the militia and that peaceable law abiding citizens must never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon or they would not be an effective deterrent against a tyrannical government.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
Not after either. Scotus got it wrong. It's not the first time. I can think of two others.

So are you saying States can ban gun ownership?
Dude, you are so far afield it isn't even funny.

Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?
 
Moore violated the Constitution when he posted the Ten Commandments on his Court House property or inside of it. He was specifically cited for violating the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Actually he didn't. The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. State governments are free to establish state religions.
Most certainly the states are not allowed to establish a state religion. Where the hell do you get an idea like that?
Half of the states had a state religion at the time the constitution was ratified by the states.
And they had to give them up in order to join the new country, the United States of America.
 
Moore violated the Constitution when he posted the Ten Commandments on his Court House property or inside of it. He was specifically cited for violating the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Actually he didn't. The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. State governments are free to establish state religions.
Most certainly the states are not allowed to establish a state religion. Where the hell do you get an idea like that?
Half of the states had a state religion at the time the constitution was ratified by the states.
And they had to give them up in order to join the new country, the United States of America.
No. Not at all.

They literally debated making the 2nd Amendment restrict the rights of state in forming established religions. It failed in the Senate. It's all on the record.
 
So are you saying States can ban gun ownership?
Dude, you are so far afield it isn't even funny.

Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace. The Founding Fathers believed the people themselves were the militia and that peaceable law abiding citizens must never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon or they would not be an effective deterrent against a tyrannical government.

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

all well and good, and I agree with the premise, but it doesn't answer my question.
 
So are you saying States can ban gun ownership?
Dude, you are so far afield it isn't even funny.

Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
 
Dude, you are so far afield it isn't even funny.

Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?
 
Why don't you just answer the question?
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
 
So now Gay Mafia is trying to completely shut all opposition out of the American political system;
That's right, with information campaigns designed to have them voted out of office. That's how all of this works in a civilized society. Welcome to America, enjoy your visit.
 
Because it isn't relevant and because SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate.

I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.
 
I agree SCOTUS cannot legislate, but again, if you don't think the 14th incorporates federal rights onto the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
 
Why do you think the 14th Amendment allows states to ban gun ownership?

I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Again, why should it?
 
I think it means they can't as it incorporates the 2nd amendment onto the States.
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....
 
So why would you think that I thought it would?

Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....
You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.
 
Did you not deny incorporation regarding the first via the 14th?
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....
You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.
 
Wasn’t refusing to concede how Al Franken finally got into the Senate? Moore lost I think he should concede but this type of stuff didn’t start with Moore or to be fair Franken either it doesn’t happen often but it is part of politics.
 
Can you say that in English? Seriously, I don't know what you are saying.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to be anything other than what it was written for.

It does not amend or alter any other Amendment. It can't. That authority does not rest with the courts.

So again, if the 14th doesn't extend the 2nd amendment to the States, why can't a State ban gun ownership?
Again, why should it?

I don't think you are getting the question.....
You are asking me to prove something I don't believe. Forcing states to recognize NATIONAL citizenship shouldn't have been required in the 1st place.

But there has to be a mechanism to allow people to exercise their federal rights without State interference.
Is that what you think the 14th amendment did?
 
Moore is now going to be a cartoonish figure..who litters the landscape with fodder for late-night comedy--he is reduced to being a meme--This Amuses Me!

iu
 

Forum List

Back
Top