The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 28, 2013

  Gee, you couldn't be anymore wrong again.  I have no interest in protecting you from yourself.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 28, 2013

  [quote]Well well well look at the self proclaimed college educated 20 something Dr? and the wanna be actor claiming that they and only they know what is best for everyone, everywhere instead of letting the poor uneducated masses think and act for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. God, I am sooooooooooo glad that they are here to protect me from myself.......NOT!![/quote]From your most informative, and well thought out profile we only know one thing about you. Unless you are over 7' tall you are obese. We certainly know that isn't good for you. But, you are free to graze as much as you like. Of course, when you start to drain the health care resources due to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and knee replacements I shall personally remind you of how you feel about comprehensive health care.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 28, 2013

  I'm fairly certain that it is an obese lady who likes to look at naked people.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 28, 2013

  But it's so fun to wind them up!  They have no sense of humour, they are literalists, and I enjoy watching them sputter.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 28, 2013

  I don't. No one is at their best in a flame war. Goading people may be fun to do, but it's no fun at all to watch.
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 28, 2013

  I'm not surprised that the Trolls are going off topic again so I will go back on topic relating to DR's OP on the Constitution!  There is nothing that I'm about to say that is un-factual!  If you don't like it, that's too bad because it's how our country is designed to run.  The United States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic!  Which means that Representatives are elected through a Democratic process, to represent the people in Congress as well as the Presidency.  The US Constitution lists specific powers of the Federal Government's 3 Branches.  If the US Constitution does not specifically grant the authority to the members of those branches to do something then they don't have the power to do it which is absolute!  It's not up to the Supreme Court to rule the Constitutionality of a law that Congress passes after the fact, Congress is required to pass laws that are Constitutional!  (With enough of them already being lawyers, they should understand this already, but I guess many of them don't right up to the President)    The founders created the Electoral College so as to give small states equal representation, and if we eliminate this process and elect presidents only on popular vote then we will be destroying a key piece of this republic by forming a very dangerous democracy where simple majority rules.  (See Ben Franklin Quote in previous post)
  The Constitution has gone through the Amendment process multiple times, the first of which being the addition of the Bill of Rights which specifically deals with individual rights and those of the States! (See 10th Amendment) and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it give the Federal government any additional powers, in fact it entrenches the individual rights of it's citizens.
  Someone mentioned polls to me in previous posts, apparently reminding me that I live in a state where polls are overwhelmingly contrary my viewpoints! Well good thing there is still an intact Constitution which protects my rights equally as anyone else rights to disagree with me, however, every other CT citizen could still disagree with me on the gun issue, I could literally be the only one with this viewpoint and they still can't take my right to bear arms away because of this protection!  Will they try? Probably but that is why it's there to protect everyone!
  Guns!  Yeah, that pesky 2nd Amendment!   Let's look at the definition of the term "Shall" Verb(in the first person) Expressing the future tense: "this time next week I shall be in Scotland".Expressing a strong assertion or intention: "they shall succeed".Synonymsmust - ought
  In the First Amendment "Congress SHALL make NO law......"  2nd Amendment  "The RIGHT of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT be infringed"  Yes future tense, it's Absolute, and notice that in the first amendment they mention Congress, but in the 2nd they don't, but all of them mentioned in both Amendments are Individual Rights and cannot be infringed in any way by any government!  You don't like that?  Too bad!
  There is overwhelming evidence as has been stated multiple times in other posts that the Founders of this country added the 2nd Amendment specifically to protect the people from tyranny.  Anything else such as self defense, hunting, etc. is covered but not the main focus!  You can argue till you are blue in the face all of the silly false arguments that contradict this fact, but you are simply wrong!  We 2nd amendment supporters do not care one iota if you don't like guns, don't want to own them, or even loathe them, but you cannot tell us that we can't own them.  And any politician who feels the need to take them away, ban them, or restrict them from citizens of this country who are not barred from owning them (because they gave up their right to own) is violating their oath of office, and that is a high crime against the Constitution!
  Presidential Executive Orders: Violate the oath of office except for Federal Employees only!  The President Does Not have Constitutional Authority to enact them on any citizen unless it's part of the powers granted him or her by the Constitution through the legislative process!
  Any law by passed by Congress must be within the scope of the 18 Enumerated Powers Granted them by the Constitution.  Any law that is not within this scope is Unconstitutional and reserved to the States or the People respectively (SEE 10th Amendment)  Note, Requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or guns owners to purchase liability insurance are NOT in the 18!
  These are just examples of History that most of you ignore or refuse to accept.   BTW, from this point forward, any personal attacks on me wasting space on this forum will be ignored by me.  If you can't accept fact, that is your problem, if you want to debate without the attacks, I'm all in!
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 28, 2013

  [quote]I don't. No one is at their best in a flame war. Goading people may be fun to do, but it's no fun at all to watch.
  [/quote]Yes it is. I laugh at this nonsense everyday. Keep it up Soupie. Oh, and I laugh at you too.
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 1, 2013

  FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British.
  
  What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that?
  
  The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?
  
  And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
  

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Mar 1, 2013

  [quote][quote]FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British.
  
  What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that?
  
  The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?
  
  And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
  [/quote]What part of "shall not" do you not understand? As for your other questions, just more progressive double speak and twisting of the subject at hand.[/quote]As long as we are breaking down the 2nd Amendment......What part of "well regulated militia" don't you guys understand?
  
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Mar 1, 2013

  [quote][quote][quote]FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British.
  
  What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that?
  
  The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?
  
  And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
  [/quote]What part of "shall not" do you not understand? As for your other questions, just more progressive double speak and twisting of the subject at hand.[/quote]As long as we are breaking down the 2nd Amendment......What part of "well regulated militia" don't you guys understand?
  
  [/quote]"Well Regulated Militia" meaning Well trained and Ready!  I you can find in the Federalist papers or other proof from the Founders that it meant something different, I'm all ears!  I Understand very well, apparently you are assuming the progressive meaning of the term!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Mar 1, 2013

  So "progressive" means looking forward, "conservative" implies looking backward.  What part of that don't you understand?

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Mar 2, 2013

  Gun Control for Dummies below gives an interesting look at the Gun Control Debate from a view of the entire Bill of Rights!  People often argue the relevance of some of the Amendments in the present time, or the fact that they had muskets back in the day and that broken record argument that doesn't hold water but the fact is that our Founders wrote the Constitution with the long term future well in mind as well as present time.  The Third Amendment is a classic example of this!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be
  

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote]"Well Regulated Militia" meaning Well trained and Ready!  I you can find in the Federalist papers or other proof from the Founders that it meant something different, I'm all ears!
  [/quote]From Merriam Webster Dictionary:
  
  Regulated
  
  transitive verb; regulated, regulating.1)To govern or direct, according to rule. a) to bring under the control of law or constituted authority. b) to make regulations for or concerning.2)to bring order, method or uniformity to
  
  ...and yes it can be well trained and ready.... but are every one of your 80 million gun owners, well trained and ready? and are they part of a regulated militia? I didn't think so!!
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Mar 2, 2013

  http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Mar 2, 2013

  What a touch of class you bring Gassy!  Like those hillbilly rapists in Deliverance.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote]I will GUARANTEE that every legal gun owner on this site and most likely in the nation is more "well trained and regulated" than 99.9% of you no-gun owning gun haters. We either practice at our home ranges or the local gun range as often as we can afford with the price of ammunition now.[/quote]You can't guarantee a thing! The modifier at the end of your last gaseous explosion violates your very premise.
  If you can't afford ammunition or training at ranges, which you just "guaranteed every legal gun own on this sits has" then your guarantee is invalid and false on it's face!Perhaps you were too busy doodling guns when you were in school to pay much attention to logic.
  Now that you have made a guarantee about the gun owners on this site, can you please provide us with the proof of your statement?Proof is similar to being called in poker, you are asked to provide proof - a fact- an incontrovertible fact - something that is not a feeling or belief.
  If you can't afford those very things necessary for your very survival, ammunition, perhaps instead of pontificating on this website about "the price of ammunition now" you get a better job, or a second job, that allows you to fulfill your needs.
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 2, 2013

  If the 2nd President Bush - President Rubio, whoever, pick one - were able to bypass the First Amendment and close down the Buddhist temple I attend, then none of our rights are secure. True enough. Butit's not going to happen. Nor is Obama going to come to get your gun.Noright under the Constitution is absolute and un-regulatable, because rights do, genuinely, conflict.
  
  Do my Hawaiian neighbors have the right to exercise their religion by resuming inter-island raiding for human sacrifice victims? Do the Black Muslims of New Haven have the right, under the First and Second Amendments, to acquire and arm a nuclear weapon? Do I have the right, as a matter of free speech, to insist in print that you are a n*crophiliac, or to circulate n*ked photos of your children?
  
  Weapons have usually been regulated to some extent in much of the US. Dodge City is the famous example. Such regulation is not unprecedented, and is in fact lighter now than it has been in recent decades past.  The only thing special about the present moment is the aggressive propagandizing and fundraising being done by political entrepreneurs who have seized on the fears you express, and are fanning those fears to the point of paranoia.
  
  No one is going to come get your gun.As I asked earlier (and yes, there are responses to your topic in the thread, you've just chosen to ignore them)whowould that be? In our densely layered Federal system, it could be Phoenix police, the Maricopa County Sheriff, the Arizona State Troopers, the AZ National Guard, the Army, or the Marines.Noneof those organizations has any brief to do any such thing. And would the rest all stand by, in the event?
  

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote][quote][quote]. Much farther thatn the likes of you.[/quote]Alright Mr. Corpulence, please operationally define what you mean by like of me.
  What exactly do you know except I would prefer to live in a world with less weapons? Do you know if I have been trained in gun safety? Do you know if it was an elective in school? Do you know if I ever shot? Besides shooting from the hip, what exactly are you saying?

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote]I will GUARANTEE that every legal gun owner on this site and most likely in the nation is more "well trained and regulated" than 99.9% of you no-gun owning gun haters. We either practice at our home ranges or the local gun range as often as we can afford with the price of ammunition now.[/quote]Pray tell on what do you base, what appears to be an outrageous claim?

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Mar 2, 2013

  Steve had basically stated the answer to this question.  The ATF is not coming for your guns or your "christian fun".  No one is out to get you.  So stop whinging and whining.  You know it isn't going to happen.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote]Moderators or someone, would you please move this and other divisive, often hateful conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with nudism into a more appropriate category, perhaps make one called "religion and politics?" I'm so tired of seeing this stuff in the general forum.[/quote]There are no moderators like almost all successful forums!  And btw, it's not a requirment that ever post in this forum is about nudism!  WE are all (most at least) nudists but we have lives outside of nudism.  If you don't like the topic, don't read it.  The problem that moderators must be appointed for are trolls who constantly attack and go off topic.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Mar 2, 2013

  [quote][quote]"Well Regulated Militia" meaning Well trained and Ready!  I you can find in the Federalist papers or other proof from the Founders that it meant something different, I'm all ears!
  [/quote]From Merriam Webster Dictionary:
  
  Regulated
  
  transitive verb; regulated, regulating.1)To govern or direct, according to rule. a) to bring under the control of law or constituted authority. b) to make regulations for or concerning.2)to bring order, method or uniformity to
  
  ...and yes it can be well trained and ready.... but are every one of your 80 million gun owners, well trained and ready? and are they part of a regulated militia? I didn't think so!!
  
  [/quote]This is an exact quote from Constituion.org regarding the "Well Regulated Militia" Clause:
  "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."

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Mar 3, 2013

  [quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]. Much farther thatn the likes of you.[/quote]Alright Mr. Corpulence, please operationally define what you mean by like of me.
  What exactly do you know except I would prefer to live in a world with less weapons? Do you know if I have been trained in gun safety? Do you know if it was an elective in school? Do you know if I ever shot? Besides shooting from the hip, what exactly are you saying?[/quote]Oh come come topper, an educated man like you should be able to figure it out. Now let's see how far you can twist it.[/quote]Why am I not surprised  you choose not to expound upon your assertions?

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Mar 3, 2013

  The 2nd amendment has been debated for years by historians, scholars and constitutionalists.  It seems only the gun owners see it clearly.  For the rest, it seems a bit gray. Militia or personal?
  

  ReactReply