Not Getting Political But...

[johnj92131]

Again, just being factual - nothing more.

Term limits in Congress require a Constitunal ammendment.

The Constutional Ammeddment requires approval by both houses of Congress and by the leguslatures of 3/4th of the states.

DO we really think a majority of state legislatures would cut off their future jobs???

Fat chance. Like it or not. We have the best government money can buy. Us chumps just did not buy it. So just try to cut the money from the whores and the John's. Or just enjoy the ride.

Damn, my fat fingers and the cell pne keyboard.

[jimoshel]

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

[buffalob]

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

in or out of the house and senate?

[Oyaji]

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

.

They gettin worried up there in D.C.

.

Last year, Homeland Security ordered enough ammunition to shoot every American almost 7 times each (2 billion rounds, 300 million Americans). They said the ammo was for target practice. I wonder why they ordered hollow points then?

.

in or out of the house and senate?

.

:D

[mpace6a]

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

Supposedly a lot of rifles and armored vehicles as well. Bigger than humvees, smaller than MRAPs...don't remember what they said they were. Saw it and though..damn, if they get one, I want one too!

[Oyaji]

 

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

Supposedly a lot of rifles and armored vehicles as well. Bigger than humvees, smaller than MRAPs...don't remember what they said they were. Saw it and though..damn, if they get one, I want one too!

.

Second amendment says you can have whatever you can afford so that you can practice and maintain a state of readiness in fulfillment of your patriotic duty to defend your free nation, and that that right "shall not be infringed". Funny how there are restrictive laws contrary to INFRINGING that constitutional guarantee though, eh?

[mpace6a]

 

 

 

Obama has been asking military leaders if they would fire on American citizens. Wonder why?

Supposedly a lot of rifles and armored vehicles as well. Bigger than humvees, smaller than MRAPs...don't remember what they said they were. Saw it and though..damn, if they get one, I want one too!

.

Second amendment says you can have whatever you can afford so that you can practice and maintain a state of readiness in fulfillment of your patriotic duty to defend your free nation. Funny how there are restrictive laws contrary to that constitutional guarantee though, eh?

I always thought that restrictive laws were unconstitutional, especially given the obvious nature of the 2nd. Although like many i fear our government is well past being "for the people", so the laws make sense for them.

[Incommando]

The million trucker rally wound up being about 27 trucks and a chartreuse VW microbus good buddy.

 

The 2nd clearly was never meant to allow unfettered access to weapons. Even those who ratified the document allowed the seizure of weapons and denial of ownership. Did they allow murderers to carry loaded firearms to jail? To trail? Of course not.  That is absurd and clearly shows their intent that the 2nd does not allow unfettered access to weapons. Did the BoR and the the 2nd free and arm the slaves? Of course not.  So now that it is clearly established that the 2nd has always allowed restrictions on firearm possession the only question is to what degree. If you think you are a member of a "well organized militia" ( and not the ready reserve of the militia act of 1903 which is interpreted as authorizing the draft) then I am certain that in order to qualify as even the ready reserve you have all of the prescribed gear on hand as listed in the 2nd 1792 militia act: "Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack." And those are the conditions for the UNorganized militia, which could hardly be called "well regulated." If you lack those necessities you are not a part of any militia per law. If you do happen to qualify as the militia I am sure none of you will expect the due process for criminal law to apply to you such as a grand jury review of any charges against you, as stated in the BoR, right? Read the 5th, for example. Hey, in for the penny in for the pound. You can't claim membership one place and deny it another. The NRA, just another PAC, avoids this by leaving the "well regulated militia" part off of its postings and even the inscription on its headquarters. Yep, they are just some more shady lobbyists.

 

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BeardAndRand.html

 

The Revolution was fought due to a complete lack of representation. Well, guess what? We have said representation as allowed under a democratically elected representational constitutional republic. We patently are NOT A DEMOCRACY. Anyone talking civil war or revolution now are fully traitors. There is a huge difference between not being able to get a enough people who share your beliefs to show up at the polls and allow your side to win than not being represented. You must truly be un-American to try to subvert this system that has served us for hundreds of years because you are children crying over not getting your way. Why not man up, learn from your mistakes, and try to get that voting majority? Because you realize your radical views will never allow such a majority as intended by COTUS means you can't win so you talk treason??? Even if you think you can show the other camp is treasonous to lower yourselves to the same level makes you the same traitors. 

[Incommando]

 

.

Oyaji : "Second amendment says you can have whatever you can afford so that you can practice and maintain a state of readiness in fulfillment of your patriotic duty to defend your free nation, and that that right "shall not be infringed". Funny how there are restrictive laws contrary to INFRINGING that constitutional guarantee though, eh? "

 

Funny the parts you quote and don't. Again, if there can be no infringement why aren't you marching on your nearest prison to demand that all prisoners have loaded weapons in their cells?  NO INFRINGEMENT means NO INFRINGEMENT, right? Or are you picking and choosing which truths are true? 

 

The actual wording of the 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  

 

 Please point out the part that says anything about "whatever you can afford, "practice, "maintain a state of readiness," or "patriotic duty" as they seem to be missing from the actual document.

 

As we with the bare minimum of education know commas are used to separate minor phrases in the main phrase (to paraphrase). So removing the parts within the comma still leaves the point, correct? Does everyone else remember this? Example: The dog, which was brown, bit the cat. If you remove the parts within the commas the phrase still stands: The dog bit the cat. So: "A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed." States can have National Guards, police, etc... 

[Oyaji]

Somebody sure got his panties in a bunch.

.

Let's look at words. What do you think men of 250 years ago would have made of the word "panties"? I reckon they might figure it out with some effort - just as you might be able to figure out the meaning of the word "regulated" if you took the trouble.

.

Even to recent years "regulated" when applied to the military means "practiced". Ever heard of the "North Vietnamese Regulars"?  If you haven't, ask your pappy or uncle who served in Viet Nam about them. Going back to the time the constitution was written, the Brittish Regulars were to be feared among all the armies of the world, because they were so "well-regulated" that their discipline held under fire and under any conditions on the battlefield - they never broke and ran.

.

That's enough for now - but I'll be back later, young'un.       

[Oyaji]

.

Oyaji : "Second amendment says you can have whatever you can afford so that you can practice and maintain a state of readiness in fulfillment of your patriotic duty to defend your free nation, and that that right "shall not be infringed". Funny how there are restrictive laws contrary to INFRINGING that constitutional guarantee though, eh? "

 

Funny the parts you quote and don't. Again, if there can be no infringement why aren't you marching on your nearest prison to demand that all prisoners have loaded weapons in their cells? NO INFRINGEMENT means NO INFRINGEMENT, right? Or are you picking and choosing which truths are true?

.

I didn't quote anything when I first wrote it, but then I edited and I thought I would throw in the "shall not be infringed" part. My paraphrase is a good one, but I figured some people (like you, for instance) might not get that without it.

.

And a word of advice to you: don't go bringing "armed prisoners" as an example to support your argument unless you aim to undermine your point and make yourself look like an @$$. As an acquaintance federal district judge told me (to negate my point in my argument with her against the death penalty), "the rights of criminals have been limited because they have transgressed against the society which offers those rights".

.

The actual wording of the 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Please point out the part that says anything about "whatever you can afford, "practice, "maintain a state of readiness," or "patriotic duty" as they seem to be missing from the actual document.

.

Again, my paraphrasing. Read it in the spirit it was written - for reference, see the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founding fathers:

.

Because A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

.

They feared the power of a standing army and wrote specifically about its dangers, and instead sought reliance on a citizen military. Standing armies bring with them the advancement of the power of a class of professional soldiers, with accompanying abuses of power that are attendent with monopoly of force. The biggest threat is of a military coup.

.

Think that is outside the realm of possibility in a modern society? For examples to the contrary look at other nations today, or just go back in the history of the USA: the most recent example of an attempted military coup was in the 1930s. Go look up Major General Smedley Butler and his testimony before Congress for a bit of American history not taught in classrooms.

.

Know the definition of a militia? It is a citizen army. Militias have traditionally provided their own arms - whatever they can afford and have been allowed by their governments:

.

Disarming a populace takes away the power of the people to resist tyranny, therefore the founding fathers put in a constitutional guarantee that citizens never need be subject to it by ensuring that they would always have access to arms - all arms, whatever they could afford that would allow them to be competitive in a war (not the muskets to which you refer - "ARMS", without limitation):

.

As we with the bare minimum of education know commas are used to separate minor phrases in the main phrase (to paraphrase). So removing the parts within the comma still leaves the point, correct? Does everyone else remember this? Example: The dog, which was brown, bit the cat. If you remove the parts within the commas the phrase still stands: The dog bit the cat. So: "A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed." States can have National Guards, police, etc...

.

Don't go there dude - you will lose.

[ride172]

A person doesn't have to look far to find a government over stepping it's boundaries and killing it's own citizens. I want to be able to defend my family and neighbors if the situation arises. I will use the deadliest force necessary to keep them safe.

I agree with everything Oyaji said about the second amendment. I just can't say it as well.

 

NSA please add my name to the "not comply" list.. lol.. but seriously.........

[nitroxsteve]

 

. Oyaji : "Second amendment says you can have whatever you can afford so that you can practice and maintain a state of readiness in fulfillment of your patriotic duty to defend your free nation, and that that right "shall not be infringed". Funny how there are restrictive laws contrary to INFRINGING that constitutional guarantee though, eh? "Funny the parts you quote and don't. Again, if there can be no infringement why aren't you marching on your nearest prison to demand that all prisoners have loaded weapons in their cells? NO INFRINGEMENT means NO INFRINGEMENT, right? Or are you picking and choosing which truths are true?

.I didn't quote anything when I first wrote it, but then I edited and I thought I would throw in the "shall not be infringed" part. My paraphrase is a good one, but I figured some people (like you, for instance) might not get that without it..And a word of advice to you: don't go bringing "armed prisoners" as an example to support your argument unless you aim to undermine your point and make yourself look like an @$$. As an acquaintance federal district judge told me (to negate my point in my argument with her against the death penalty), "the rights of criminals have been limited because they have transgressed against the society which offers those rights"..

The actual wording of the 2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Please point out the part that says anything about "whatever you can afford, "practice, "maintain a state of readiness," or "patriotic duty" as they seem to be missing from the actual document.

.Again, my paraphrasing. Read it in the spirit it was written - for reference, see the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founding fathers: .

Because A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

.They feared the power of a standing army and wrote specifically about its dangers, and instead sought reliance on a citizen military. Standing armies bring with them the advancement of the power of a class of professional soldiers, with accompanying abuses of power that are attendent with monopoly of force. The biggest threat is of a military coup..Think that is outside the realm of possibility in a modern society? For examples to the contrary look at other nations today, or just go back in the history of the USA: the most recent example of an attempted military coup was in the 1930s. Go look up Major General Smedley Butler and his testimony before Congress for a bit of American history not taught in classrooms..Know the definition of a militia? It is a citizen army. Militias have traditionally provided their own arms - whatever they can afford and have been allowed by their governments:.Disarming a populace takes away the power of the people to resist tyranny, therefore the founding fathers put in a constitutional guarantee that citizens never need be subject to it by ensuring that they would always have access to arms - all arms, whatever they could afford that would allow them to be competitive in a war (not the muskets to which you refer - "ARMS", without limitation):.

As we with the bare minimum of education know commas are used to separate minor phrases in the main phrase (to paraphrase). So removing the parts within the comma still leaves the point, correct? Does everyone else remember this? Example: The dog, which was brown, bit the cat. If you remove the parts within the commas the phrase still stands: The dog bit the cat. So: "A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed." States can have National Guards, police, etc...

.Don't go there dude - you will lose.

X2

[JeepcoMJ]

wow. Incommando, while I can certainly see the depth of your opinionated arguments, and the forethought of them, I think, in this nation, at this point in time, that you are vastly unaware of the application of the terms and conditions of the constitution.

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety shall deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Benjamin Franklin was a wise man.

[Oyaji]

The million trucker rally wound up being about 27 trucks and a chartreuse VW microbus good buddy.

 

The 2nd clearly was never meant to allow unfettered access to weapons. Even those who ratified the document allowed the seizure of weapons and denial of ownership. Did they allow murderers to carry loaded firearms to jail? To trail? Of course not.  That is absurd and clearly shows their intent that the 2nd does not allow unfettered access to weapons. Did the BoR and the the 2nd free and arm the slaves? Of course not.  So now that it is clearly established that the 2nd has always allowed restrictions on firearm possession the only question is to what degree. If you think you are a member of a "well organized militia" ( and not the ready reserve of the militia act of 1903 which is interpreted as authorizing the draft) then I am certain that in order to qualify as even the ready reserve you have all of the prescribed gear on hand as listed in the 2nd 1792 militia act: "Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack." And those are the conditions for the UNorganized militia, which could hardly be called "well regulated." If you lack those necessities you are not a part of any militia per law. If you do happen to qualify as the militia I am sure none of you will expect the due process for criminal law to apply to you such as a grand jury review of any charges against you, as stated in the BoR, right? Read the 5th, for example. Hey, in for the penny in for the pound. You can't claim membership one place and deny it another. The NRA, just another PAC, avoids this by leaving the "well regulated militia" part off of its postings and even the inscription on its headquarters. Yep, they are just some more shady lobbyists.

 

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BeardAndRand.html

 

The Revolution was fought due to a complete lack of representation. Well, guess what? We have said representation as allowed under a democratically elected representational constitutional republic. We patently are NOT A DEMOCRACY. Anyone talking civil war or revolution now are fully traitors. There is a huge difference between not being able to get a enough people who share your beliefs to show up at the polls and allow your side to win than not being represented. You must truly be un-American to try to subvert this system that has served us for hundreds of years because you are children crying over not getting your way. Why not man up, learn from your mistakes, and try to get that voting majority? Because you realize your radical views will never allow such a majority as intended by COTUS means you can't win so you talk treason??? Even if you think you can show the other camp is treasonous to lower yourselves to the same level makes you the same traitors. 

.

Awww,  "traitor", really? I am not the one advocating dismantling the constitution here - you are.

.

Think I'll just leave this here for you to ponder, since you think  you know the minds of the founding fathers. Get back to me if after reading you have anything at all left to say:

.

"A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson

.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson

.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson

.

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."

- John Adams

.

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason

.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."

- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."

- Noah Webster

.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster

.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."

- James Madison

.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison

.

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."

- James Madison

.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt

.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee

.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

- Richard Henry Lee

.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry

.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

- St. George Tucker

.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams

.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story

.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

.

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

- Alexander Hamilton

.

[Pete M]

didn't the supreme court rule on some of this a few years ago? 

[HOrnbrod]

didn't the supreme court rule on some of this a few years ago? 

 

This? I believe they enacted a law back in the late 80's. Something about limiting multiple cut-and-paste ad nauseam quotes on a public forum. I can not recall the actual limit, but the consequences were immediate seizure and confiscation of both registered and unregistered firearms from the accused.

[Oyaji]

 

didn't the supreme court rule on some of this a few years ago? 

 

This? I believe they enacted a law back in the late 80's. Something about limiting multiple cut-and-paste ad nauseam quotes on a public forum. I can not recall the actual limit, but the consequences were immediate seizure and confiscation of both registered and unregistered firearms from the accused.

.

Poor attempt at humor, but I take your point.

.

Since all those quotes were by founding fathers, and since the fellow who was trying to brand me as a "traitor" falsely claimed that the founding fathers did not mean to allow unfettered access to arms, I thought the quotes that showed him misconstruing their obvious intent was indeed in order. Perhaps he learned something if he read them, as perhaps some other readers did;  in any case I thought those  quotes would be both illuminating and entertaining for all readers in general.

.

I seriously doubt there will be any rebuttal whatsoever... so maybe we can get back to the original topic of this thread, to wit: how far down will this ridiculous shutdown of the gummint take us, and should we not make known our opinions of our elected officials?

[carnuck]

77 trucks just from WA state alone made it, but since i495 was closed down, side streets became ugly. The Vets were also there protesting and getting arrested.

 

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/14/exclusive-video-vet-protesters-remove-barricades-dc-memorials

 

 

how about those missing nukes and 9 fired nuke commanders?

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/10/14/michael-savage-missing-nukes-purging-commanders-whacking-people/

 

 

The million trucker rally wound up being about 27 trucks and a chartreuse VW microbus good buddy.

[Incommando]

He cut and pasted much but said little. The NRA argument ( and apparently his by the initial post I cited) is that gun rights are absolute and cannot be infringed. I then point out what a lie that is, and he confirms it by stating that gun rights are not absolute and can be infringed and even claims some expert friend to back up my contention. 'Preciate that.

 

Quotes from the founders, who in many cases were severely flawed people, in no way constitute law and certainly do not qualify as the BoR. COTUS has been a lie since day one. It speaks of all people yet patently did not apply to blacks and to a lesser degree woman, jews, catholics... None of the BoR applied to the slaves as these "founders" were talking out of their butts in regards to freedom and rights for all. And it certainly didn't stop Jefferson from forcing slaves to engage in some between the sheets action. No action taken by someone you own is ever voluntary. Hmmm...how many parts of the BoR were violated by slavery and slave holders?

 

To use military units from a communist country to support your incorrect interpretation of the 2nd is a nice touch and one that maybe only 1 person in the world would have attempted. Kudos.

[Incommando]

 

77 trucks just from WA state alone made it, but since i495 was closed down, side streets became ugly. The Vets were also there protesting and getting arrested.

 

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/14/exclusive-video-vet-protesters-remove-barricades-dc-memorials

 

 

how about those missing nukes and 9 fired nuke commanders?

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/10/14/michael-savage-missing-nukes-purging-commanders-whacking-people/

 

 

The million trucker rally wound up being about 27 trucks and a chartreuse VW microbus good buddy.

You are referring to a separate protest. The million trucker protest occurred was centered on shutting down the "beltway" Friday and was not the same as the vet protest. Actually being curious I text-ed a friend who works in D.C. but lives in Virginia. He spotted no trucks and said that rush hour traffic was about as usual. There are many sources reporting this. As with Fox, many sources have a bias to some degree:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/trucker-protest-beltway-98194.html 

 

The trucker's protest is probably the most over-hyped failure of a protest in at least recent memory. Even the "million muslim march" garnered an estimated 2,000 people. So these million truckers (even if they did end up 999,900 truckers short)  had a stated purpose of "shutting down the country" yet could not even shut down one by-pass that routinely shuts itself down with traffic. I certainly saw no evidence of such a shutdown and it had zero effect on my life.  So how does the reality compare to its stated goals? My store shelves are certainly not empty...no fuel shortages...nothing. Anyway you cut it it was a bust...

[nitroxsteve]

I think anyone who would use convicted felons to argue gun rights is struggling to make an argument. prisoners have lost all right not just gun rights. felons can't vote...not to mention their right to freedom. LOL

[Oyaji]

You back for more? I would have bet against it... but then I would have bet that you would have read what I posted first.
.
So let's try again.
.

Incommando, on 15 Oct 2013 - 08:58, said:
He cut and pasted much but said little. The NRA argument ( and apparently his by the initial post I cited) is that gun rights are absolute and cannot be infringed. I then point out what a lie that is, and he confirms it by stating that gun rights are not absolute and can be infringed and even claims some expert friend to back up my contention. 'Preciate that.

.
I said plenty, and used quotes to back up my argument and dismantle yours. If you don't like it, well, sorry 'bout that... it just means you will have to try harder. Perhaps the fault is partly mine. I said a lot, and used long sentences and some big words... again, sorry 'bout that. Try reading it again.
.
Presenting the example that imprisoned convicts should under the 2nd Amendment have the right to bear arms while in prison is a strawman fallacy* and thus is not a valid argument. I think you know that, and that is why you made yet another strawman to attack here (claiming I supported your point when I did no such thing) so as to cover your tracks. Deceitful and contemptible - shame on you.
.

Incommando, on 15 Oct 2013 - 08:58, said:
Quotes from the founders, who in many cases were severely flawed people, in no way constitute law and certainly do not qualify as the BoR.

.
Another strawman argument: I never said those quotes from the founding fathers were law.
.
But they certainly are worthy of consideration, particularly as you claimed to have insight as to what the founding fathers meant when they penned the Bill of Rights. I quoted them to refute your claimed insight.
.
Here is one that is particularly applicable here, considering that you seem to have missed it earlier:
.
 

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson.

.
Pretty clear, isn't it?
.

Incommando, on 15 Oct 2013 - 08:58, said:
COTUS has been a lie since day one. It speaks of all people yet patently did not apply to blacks and to a lesser degree woman, jews, catholics... None of the BoR applied to the slaves as these "founders" were talking out of their butts in regards to freedom and rights for all. And it certainly didn't stop Jefferson from forcing slaves to engage in some between the sheets action. No action taken by someone you own is ever voluntary. Hmmm...how many parts of the BoR were violated by slavery and slave holders?

.
I had trouble figuring out what you were talking about, first thinking you had misspelled "COITUS" (since you referred to rape in a following sentence), or SCOTUS, or god knows what other acronym (take note that flinging jargon and acronyms about is not accepted as a sign of intelligence). I had to Google it to get some idea of what you were talking about. I guess you must not mean the most popular usage found there, "Center Of The Universe Syndrome", but rather #2: "Constitution of the United States.".
.
And so here are yet more logical fallacies from you, this time those of circular argument**, relevance***, and irrelevant appeals****. You want to argue the constitution and then claim that the constitution itself is "a lie" in order to support your argument, then switch to emotion to sway your audience rather than using logic!
.
You'll have to do better than that.
.

Incommando, on 15 Oct 2013 - 08:58, said:
To use military units from a communist country to support your incorrect interpretation of the 2nd is a nice touch and one that maybe only 1 person in the world would have attempted. Kudos.

.
I used "military units from a communist country" to support my arguments? What are you talking about?
.
I see you have managed to work in a personal attack on me: your ad hominem***** makes for a total of 5 logical fallacies you have used in one post. "Kudos"!
.
.
.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one's own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.
.
* Strawman Fallacy - A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
.
** Circular argument - An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
.
***Relevance Fallacy - Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply don't bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don't do this; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they don't have any evidential value.
.
**** Irrelevant Appeals - Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence.
.
***** Ad Hominem - Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
.

[JeepcoMJ]

The simple fact is that treason is NOT being discussed here, on this forum, in any way, shape, or form. That is above and beyond political debates, which have been removed from this site before for exactly the direction that this discussion is heading.

 

Keep it simple.

 

We all have opinions. To flatly say "you are wrong" is a personal attack and removes the intelligent value of the conversation. To stand your ground and refuse all logical arguments is accomplishing the same thing.

 

I do not like Obama. I do not like ACA.

Neither have, in my opinion, addressed constitutional values, and neither holds this nation's best interest.

We can look right at Denmark and their utter welfare state failure, the fact that they're in huge financial turmoil over it. We can see that their commitment to the removal of their welfare program as it sat a month ago is enough to also make us realize that their are millions of people who have become dependant upon said program, that will be left without, left wanting, and unable to cope.

Those people dependant on the system have become so reliant on it that they haven't spent the time saving and depending on their own income to ensure ability to cope with their own medical and financial issues.

 

The flat refusal by liberals to meet the conservative proposal that either we are all held to ACA, with no one exempt, or it doesn't apply to anyone...is enough validation of Republican concerns that it is beneficial to none of the American people.

 

The government shutdown is easily seen as being due to nothing more than the fact that ALL politicians are puppets, and that neither the few who have tried to make the ACA applicable to everyone or no one, nor those who KNOW it's not benifical, will back down.

 

It's all a joke, it's all a distraction from the truth.

[sinkrun]

The simple fact is that treason is NOT being discussed here, on this forum, in any way, shape, or form. That is above and beyond political debates, which have been removed from this site before for exactly the direction that this discussion is heading.

 

Keep it simple.

 

We all have opinions. To flatly say "you are wrong" is a personal attack and removes the intelligent value of the conversation. To stand your ground and refuse all logical arguments is accomplishing the same thing.

 

I do not like Obama. I do not like ACA.

Neither have, in my opinion, addressed constitutional values, and neither holds this nation's best interest.

We can look right at Denmark and their utter welfare state failure, the fact that they're in huge financial turmoil over it. We can see that their commitment to the removal of their welfare program as it sat a month ago is enough to also make us realize that their are millions of people who have become dependant upon said program, that will be left without, left wanting, and unable to cope.

Those people dependant on the system have become so reliant on it that they haven't spent the time saving and depending on their own income to ensure ability to cope with their own medical and financial issues.

 

The flat refusal by liberals to meet the conservative proposal that either we are all held to ACA, with no one exempt, or it doesn't apply to anyone...is enough validation of Republican concerns that it is beneficial to none of the American people.

 

The government shutdown is easily seen as being due to nothing more than the fact that ALL politicians are puppets, and that neither the few who have tried to make the ACA applicable to everyone or no one, nor those who KNOW it's not benifical, will back down.

 

It's all a joke, it's all a distraction from the truth.

Well said and I am so glad to see you use ACA instead of what 99% of the population uses to describe it. It makes me sick to hear it called odumercare.