Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2015, 11:02 PM   #71 (permalink)
Who wants this dick?
 
Dharma & Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 36,510
Default

Are we talking about the 2nd Amendment now?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin & Hobbes
To evaluate my character my immediate pleasure is being pitted against my future greed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The Batlord is amazing man. He loves some fine woman and he gets horny easily. What is better than that.
Dharma & Greg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 11:19 PM   #72 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 10,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
Are we talking about the 2nd Amendment now?
JWB: Tomorrow when my head is clear.

Bat: The topic de jour is fruitcakes. Enlighten us master...
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 11:24 PM   #73 (permalink)
Who wants this dick?
 
Dharma & Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 36,510
Default

I was just making fun of you for whatever it is that I can currently find to mock you for.

*shrug*
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin & Hobbes
To evaluate my character my immediate pleasure is being pitted against my future greed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The Batlord is amazing man. He loves some fine woman and he gets horny easily. What is better than that.
Dharma & Greg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 11:25 PM   #74 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,016
Default

good post batlord

so i read the synopsis and it does sound interesting, however i think it's a dead end tbh. this is just based on an exchange i was reading on people commenting on this author.

Quote:
It seems the newest mantra of the Gun Control Zealots is that the 2A is/was misinterpreted by the Heller decision, and somehow overturned some 200+ years of precedent. Somehow, it is all about a militia, and nothing to do with arms. Yet, when asked, not a single person, some claiming to be Constitutional scholars, have ever managed to cite the Supreme Court precedent, or the writings and/or quotes of any of the founders who claimed such a silly thing. The fact is, as can be seen by the Dred Scott decision, the 2A has ALWAYS been thought of as an individual right.

From DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 393 (How.)

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
So, if anyone can name the court case, or the writing of a founder who claimed that arms were only for the militia, please, post it.
Quote:
Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights

DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:

U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);

State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);

Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");
Quote:
It's called "whistling past the graveyard".

The "collective right" model has been debunked and appropriately trashed. Progressives simply reject the tenet that all things (families, communities, states and countries) begin with the individual. It is the individual in which all rights and powers reside. Communities, states and countries only have the power delegated to them by individuals to use in their behalf. Progressives reject that self-evident truth because it is an immovable obstruction to their view of governments doing what they believe is best for the people, whether the people agree with it or not.
it doesn't make sense to have a fundamental inalienable right only apply to people who are part of a militia. the fact that it's in the bill of rights makes it pretty clear that it is a right that applies to american citizens in general, imo. it would be very silly for them to put as the 2nd ****ing thing on the list something that only applies to certain clubs.

Last edited by John Wilkes Booth; 11-01-2015 at 11:30 PM.
John Wilkes Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 10:58 AM   #75 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 10,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth View Post
it doesn't make sense to have a fundamental inalienable right only apply to people who are part of a militia. the fact that it's in the bill of rights makes it pretty clear that it is a right that applies to american citizens in general, imo. it would be very silly for them to put as the 2nd ****ing thing on the list something that only applies to certain clubs.
No one is arguing that people should not be able to own guns. It's all about regulation. Up until this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

reasonable regulations were being enacted all the time to keep up with the times. For example, it's illegal to own a sawed off shotgun or a fully automatic weapon. After the Heller case the NRA and it's pit bull, the gun lobby, got empowered and went after ANY sort of regulation as being the first step towards "the gubment gonna take away your guns man"!

Now it's down to the state level. Some states like Cali continue to enact reasonable regulations. I own a Glock but can not open carry it, can not carry it concealed (unless I can provide a valid reason - if I was a cash courier I could) and can not own a silencer or a clip that holds more than 10 rounds.

Other states like AZ or CO are the ****ing wild wild west. This picture cracks me up.



Have you seen this?



Gun folks want to stand behind the 2ND like it prohibits any sort of legal intervention of any kind whatsoever. That's not how it's written.
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 02:58 PM   #76 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
William_the_Bloody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sunnydale Cemetary
Posts: 2,093
Default

Uhg! I can only support a candidate on their anti free trade policies for so long, but I can't stomach it anymore, he's becoming a comical parody.

I keep thinking he's going to fade once things get serious, but the problem is his cut throat business strategy of demolishing his competition has been very effective so far.

He's completely crushed the Bush campaign, and now he's doing the same thing to Carson.

Marco Rubio was looking like a good establishment choice, but now he's embroiled in controversy over his spending. So at the end of the day, it just might be.....Trump versus Hillary.


William_the_Bloody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 03:15 AM   #77 (permalink)
Fat girls in yoga pants
 
Nameless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 152
Default

He's a celebrity in a country that has a strong cultural focus on celebrities, shouldn't surprise anyone that he's more popular than someone with the unluckiest family name of the year. Guy should have run as the politician formerly known as Jeb if he wanted a chance.
Nameless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 09:54 AM   #78 (permalink)
Aficionado of Fine Filth
 
Psy-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: You don't want to look in there.
Posts: 3,411
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
Step off. You angry little hobgoblin.
She's a Brick House
Psy-Fi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 08:16 PM   #79 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
William_the_Bloody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sunnydale Cemetary
Posts: 2,093
Default

Trump 1 Cruz 1 Rubio 0
William_the_Bloody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 09:00 PM   #80 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
Trump 1 Cruz 1 Rubio 0
Except that's not how delegates operate.
OccultHawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.