The special insanity of it all

[bripat9643]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never happen if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

The thing is - none of this is necessary really. For starters, all we need to do is enforce the 10th Amendment (instead of adding additional amendments). But secondly, liberals don't adhere to the existing Constitution. So there is no reason to believe that they would adhere to any new amendments.

Are they really going to disobey Congressional term limits? I don't think so. If we make changes in the process, the have no choice but to comply with them or be arrested for treason.

 

[Clementine]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

If the words are still valid, so is the reasoning. Hence you want a gun, join a militia. It’s as clear as can be.

Militia are treated like terrorist groups. Aside from the language of militias, it also states that we all have the right to bear arms. A right is unconditional.

 

[P@triot]

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot!

So to summarize - in your inability to defend your position, you just resort to copying long nonsensical posts (filled with caps and rants) in a weak and transparent attempt to cover up your inability to support your absurd position.

I've highlighted a prime example of that above. I gave a direct quote in which Thomas Jefferson clearly states that the Supreme Court was given no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself. Your "proof" (and man am I using that term lightly here) that they are is a letter from Jefferson in which he agreed that the Constitution was "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written"

Um....how exactly does that refute what Jefferson said about the Supreme Court having no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself?

Please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution. Once again, I ask you to provide proof that you own a red Lamborghini and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?". Um....no. No. Not at all. You're white bunny does not prove at all that you own a red Lamborghini.

You've had your ass handed to you in a big way with facts and your response to that reality is to ramble on for 10 pages about stuff that has nothing to do with the issue and the copy and paste that over and over in hopes that by crafting a massive post, nobody will take the time to read it and realize you don't have a clue what you're talking about. So again....please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution??? Every time I've asked you for something very simple you haven't even attempted it because you know it glaringly illustrates your ignorance.

 

[P@triot]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never happen if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

The thing is - none of this is necessary really. For starters, all we need to do is enforce the 10th Amendment (instead of adding additional amendments). But secondly, liberals don't adhere to the existing Constitution. So there is no reason to believe that they would adhere to any new amendments.

Are they really going to disobey Congressional term limits? I don't think so. If we make changes in the process, the have no choice but to comply with them or be arrested for treason.

Dude....they disregard my 1st Amendment rights. They disregard my 2nd Amendment rights. The Patriot Act (expanded exponentially under Barack Obama) disregards my 4th Amendment rights.

Obama should have been arrested for treason on dozens of occasions now. Did you see it happen? Bill Clinton committed perjury in front of the nation and admitted to doing so on national television. We couldn't even arrest him for that. His wife committed a felony with her home email server to avoid oversight and we can't even arrest her sorry ass. You're completely fooling yourself here Bripat - like the idiot liberals who claim that gun laws will stop outlaws. If a person refuses to obey the law (like liberals) then new laws will do nothing to help solve the problem.

 

[candycorn]

The courts will agree with me. You're irrelevant

The courts? The courts? So you admit that being the unhinged authoritarian power-hungry libtard that you are, you could care less about what the people want? And you have no plans to get a legal amendment through congress? Instead you're plan is to usurp the U.S. Constitution, ignore the will of the American people, and hope that the executive branch stacks the judicial branch with some equally unhinged loons such as yourself, and that they make law from the bench?

Ladies and Gentlemen.....I give you.....Candycorn! Her position is "F...America, f.....the Constitution, and f---the American people. I will get what I want".

Your hate for everything about this country, our system of government, and your fellow citizens is palpable. Why don't you leave if you hate it so much?

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws; where law is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, not who has the most weapons, who yells the loudest, who screams the most obscenities, who has the largest muscles etc...

The Roberts court seems interested in solving social ills. Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

By constitutional duties, the next President (aka Hillary Clinton) will appoint justices when they are needed on the high court. The Senate (which will be in Democrat Party hands by then) will confirm them. And we'll see where the CJUSSC wants to go from there.

This is our system. You don't seem to like it very much. So please find a nice 3rd world country more in line with your idiotic views and set up shop there.

 

[candycorn]

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

Sweetie....none of that is in the Constitution. You don't get to make it up as you go simply because you love it in the ass so much and can't get enough of it from me....

The military leadership of the nation will decide what is well-regulated. At a bare minimum, drilling with other militias several times a year will be necessary.

Don't like it, don't join a militia.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never happen if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

The thing is - none of this is necessary really. For starters, all we need to do is enforce the 10th Amendment (instead of adding additional amendments). But secondly, liberals don't adhere to the existing Constitution. So there is no reason to believe that they would adhere to any new amendments.

Are they really going to disobey Congressional term limits? I don't think so. If we make changes in the process, the have no choice but to comply with them or be arrested for treason.

Dude....they disregard my 1st Amendment rights. They disregard my 2nd Amendment rights. The Patriot Act (expanded exponentially under Barack Obama) disregards my 4th Amendment rights.

Obama should have been arrested for treason on dozens of occasions now. Did you see it happen? Bill Clinton committed perjury in front of the nation and admitted to doing so on national television. We couldn't even arrest him for that. His wife committed a felony with her home email server to avoid oversight and we can't even arrest her sorry ass. You're completely fooling yourself here Bripat - like the idiot liberals who claim that gun laws will stop outlaws. If a person refuses to obey the law (like liberals) then new laws will do nothing to help solve the problem.

I would like to see them refuse to obey the law that says they can only have 3 terms in the House. Are the going to fun for office for a fourth term? That's going to be a hard sell, even for a Democrat. And if we repeal the 17th amendment, how are they going to disobey that? Are they going to stage their own elections?

 

[candycorn]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never be fixed if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

Rottweiler says the Constitution is perfect.

Good to see mental-midget wrestling going on.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never be fixed if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

Rottweiler says the Constitution is perfect.

Good to see mental-midget wrestling going on.

You have to look up at the mental midgets.

 

[P@triot]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never be fixed if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

Rottweiler says the Constitution is perfect.

Good to see mental-midget wrestling going on.

You have to look up at the mental midgets.

Now that was funny! Well done sir. Well done.

 

[P@triot]

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

Sweetie....none of that is in the Constitution. You don't get to make it up as you go simply because you love it in the ass so much and can't get enough of it from me....

The military leadership of the nation will decide what is well-regulated. At a bare minimum, drilling with other militias several times a year will be necessary.

Don't like it, don't join a militia.

Now where is that written? Now you're moving the responsibility of "well-regulated" from the federal government over to "military leadership"?

Sorry my dear - that doesn't exist in the Constitution. But then again, you're the one who tries to make the case that the opening of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress is strictly forbidden from creating legislation.

 

[P@triot]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

 

[P@triot]

This is our system. You don't seem to like it very much. So please find a nice 3rd world country more in line with your idiotic views and set up shop there.

Yeah....uh.....I actually respect and abide by the Constitution. You hate it because it prevents you from imposing your will on others (and you won't even take the time to read it). So please find yourself a nice 3rd world socialist nation (like Cuba) where the populace is disarmed and everyone gets pitiful (albeit "equal") government table scraps.

 

[P@triot]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

 

[candycorn]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

 

[candycorn]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

 

[bripat9643]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

Horseshit. The US is rated 5th in the number of people killed in mass shootings.

 

[OKTexas]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never happen if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

The thing is - none of this is necessary really. For starters, all we need to do is enforce the 10th Amendment (instead of adding additional amendments). But secondly, liberals don't adhere to the existing Constitution. So there is no reason to believe that they would adhere to any new amendments.

Are they really going to disobey Congressional term limits? I don't think so. If we make changes in the process, the have no choice but to comply with them or be arrested for treason.

I think you need to go back and read the definition of treason in the Constitution, that wouldn't qualify.

 

[P@triot]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

So you consider mass shootings under your way of "almost never occurring" a better system than under my way in which they literally never occur?

Yes folks....this is the idiocy that is liberalism summed up nicely. I'd rather encounter a few mass shootings than no mass shootings so long as my ideology is implemented.

You do "win". If more mass shootings and a higher body count is the objective (as it clearly is for you), I don't deny it at all. You win. And you'll win every time. Of course, when it comes to death - most people would prefer to score it like golf. The person who can devise systems with the lowest number of deaths is the champion. But you've already proven on this thread that you don't think rationally or reasonably so none of this surprises me.

 

[OKTexas]

Gim
As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

Sweetie....none of that is in the Constitution. You don't get to make it up as you go simply because you love it in the ass so much and can't get enough of it from me....

The military leadership of the nation will decide what is well-regulated. At a bare minimum, drilling with other militias several times a year will be necessary.

Don't like it, don't join a militia.

Now where is that written? Now you're moving the responsibility of "well-regulated" from the federal government over to "military leadership"?

Sorry my dear - that doesn't exist in the Constitution. But then again, you're the one who tries to make the case that the opening of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress is strictly forbidden from creating legislation.

Actually the 2nd refers to State militias, not federal.