Multiculturalism

[Bookishleigh]

And it all goes downhill from there. Just like the 'assault weapons' ban....the people who support it don't even know what the fuck an 'assault weapon' is, but it sounds SCARY!! so they want it banned.


You're right the law is the law and the law can change.

First, I personally would find it amusing if everyone had to use a 1700 style musket. Can you imagine? "Wait you, asshole! I need to repack my musket!" That's just me and my warped sense of humor.

I heard the term "assault weapon." A baseball bat to the head can be an assault weapon. It's too broad.

And while the laws can change, I honestly do not foresee the 2nd Amendment being repealed, at least in our lifetimes.

 

[BotanyBoy]

First, I personally would find it amusing if everyone had to use a 1700 style musket. Can you imagine? "Wait you, asshole! I need to repack my musket!" That's just me and my warped sense of humor.

I heard the term "assault weapon." A baseball bat to the head can be an assault weapon. It's too broad.

And while the laws can change, I honestly do not foresee the 2nd Amendment being repealed, at least in our lifetimes.

LOL the muzzle loaders would be funny.

Yep, that's been changed recently after the rifle bit got broken off in (D) ass and snapped off at the base via facts. So they went for 'weapon' because then it can mean whatever they want it to mean.

It's a great fear mongering term though....fantastic fear mongering.

Me either, small changes will happen here or there via SCOTUS but that's about as far as it will go.

 

[Ishmael]

I wasn't talking about getting rid of the second amendment. When I joined this conversation, it was about where exactly in the constitution it says there is a requirement for separation between church and state. I am not opposed to the second amendment whatsoever. But you have to agree that those were very different times than what we are facing now and therefore the law is up for interpretation. Whether the interpretation is right, well, that's not my call....

There is NO injunction for the 'separation of church and state' in the constitution.

Ishmael

 

[Bookishleigh]

The Constitution, like all legal documents, is subject to interpretation. Since the founding fathers are no longer around, we cannot exactly ask them what their exact intentions where and how they would have liked them applied to our evolving society. Thomas Jefferson, however, is the one who made commentary as to the "wall of separation" and the Supreme Court has used that as its basis to enforce the separation of church and state in several legal opinions.

There is NO injunction for the 'separation of church and state' in the constitution.

Ishmael

That was exactly my entire point my earlier post I just quoted - while the language in the Constitution does not EXACTLY state a separation between church and state, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the 1st Amendment Establishment of Religion clause to imply there is a separation of church and state. It's the same with Roe v. Wade and abortion - there is no exact clause in the Constitution; however, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted that under the 14th Amendment Due Process clause, a woman's right to privacy extends to her decision to have an abortion.

It's all interpretative - the interpretations will continue to change.

 

[Ishmael]

That was exactly my entire point my earlier post I just quoted - while the language in the Constitution does not EXACTLY state a separation between church and state, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the 1st Amendment Establishment of Religion clause to imply there is a separation of church and state. It's the same with Roe v. Wade and abortion - there is no exact clause in the Constitution; however, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted that under the 14th Amendment Due Process clause, a woman's right to privacy extends to her decision to have an abortion.

It's all interpretative - the interpretations will continue to change.

Re. abortion. Justice Black and his Penumbra. He established that area that is neither light nor shadow and one wonders why the argument continues.

It falls into that area of "what in the hell were they smoking" like Wickard v. Filburn.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

Re. abortion. Justice Black and his Penumbra. He established that area that is neither light nor shadow

How so?

and one wonders why the argument continues.

Not really, it's pretty much those who believe in equal treatment under the law, and the bible thumpers who think 'because Jesus' is a valid reason to make an exception to not offer women equal treatment under the law.

And that's it.

 

[eyerami]

The Executive was successful in getting the Judiciary to take a HUGE illegal bite out of the Constitution today...

Gun purchases are off limits in the U.S. to anyone who uses medical marijuana or holds a state-approved medicinal marijuana card, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, accepting the government’s view that illegal-drug users are prone to violence.

[Please excuse the writer for even implying (however ignorantly or lazily) that the court is in any way separate from the government itself - he's no doubt a past valedictorian of Corporal RINO Butthurt's School of Justice and Tanning Salon].

Ok, trying to keep weapons out of the hands of druggies doesn't seem so draconian, right? (Unless, of course, you're a pothead.) After all, the general, practical correlation between violence and illegal drug use most certainly does exit, but such generalities shouldn't weigh-in on individual cases, especially when that individual testifies she doesn't even use illegal drugs and the court finds no evidence to doubt her...

But really, it wasn't about her situation at all: it was just another chance for progressive Leviathan to assert its illegal dominance once again...

Read the reported basis from which the court RULED their justification for totally violating the Constitution:

...the appeals court, in upholding a federal judge’s ruling, said the government’s need to prevent gun violence outweighed her Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense and her First Amendment right of free speech.

That's right: read it again...

...the government’s need to prevent gun violence outweighed her Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense and her First Amendment right of free speech.

The poor Corporal's best boy also seems confused about the 1st and 2nd being rights, when the 1st's and 2nd's entire purpose of being are simply and intentionally to overtly command Congress that they can make no law regarding or infringing either (respectively). Bad enough that one of Butthurt's saps can't get that straight...

BUT OUTRIGHT CRIMINAL FOR THE JUDICIARY TO DEEM THEMSELVES ABOVE THE VERY CONSTITUTION THEY MUST SWEAR TO SUBMIT TO, TOO!

Anti-2nd Amendmenters (read: anti-Americans) must be regaling from this latest, full-out illegal assault on the glorious Bill of Rights, as the nation moves even closer to certain civil war over the traitorous offense against and the patriotic defense of the Constitution itself...

US court upholds ban on buying guns for medical-marijuana users
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Court-upholds-gun-ban-for-people-who-use-medical-9196134.php

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Some argue that the available weapons during that time did not have the same capacity that today's weapons have and that the true intention of the founding fathers therefore does not apply to these newer, higher-powered weapons. During the time of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, individuals were armed with muskets which fired roughly three shots a minute. Today's weapons are more advanced, firing at least that within seconds.

Again, I am not arguing for or against. I see both sides of the argument. I know how to use a couple different types of guns, was trained on them, but I do not have one in my house - my personal decision.

They were aware of the technological changes and continual improvements in weapons and one would have to assume that they would anticipate further improvement of a type they could not imagine. They had a dynamic, not a static, view of the constant change brought by Liberty and the fundamental nature of human behavior. No matter the weapon, no matter the technology, some people are going to be, by their very nature, predatory. No amount of government, they realized could abrogate human nature, therefore, defense was of paramount importance.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The More Things Change, the More They Actually Don't

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/439568/print

Some timely insights into the abrogation of human nature by statute...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

They were aware of the technological changes and continual improvements in weapons and one would have to assume that they would anticipate further improvement of a type they could not imagine. They had a dynamic, not a static, view of the constant change brought by Liberty and the fundamental nature of human behavior. No matter the weapon, no matter the technology, some people are going to be, by their very nature, predatory. No amount of government, they realized could abrogate human nature, therefore, defense was of paramount importance.

Feminazi Daze knows technology progresses, and so did the Founders. But she misses the boat totally when she ignores how militia furnished their own weapons and much else. Much of the time the Continental Congress furnished nothing to the common soldier. They were reduced to chronic theft much of the time, yet forced to be in the army where they went hungry, unshod, cold.

She's another stupid cow sighting.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You are correct about the rifles, the rest I will let pass without comment.

 

[phrodeau]

The Executive was successful in getting the Judiciary to take a HUGE illegal bite out of the Constitution today...



[Please excuse the writer for even implying (however ignorantly or lazily) that the court is in any way separate from the government itself - he's no doubt a past valedictorian of Corporal RINO Butthurt's School of Justice and Tanning Salon].

Ok, trying to keep weapons out of the hands of druggies doesn't seem so draconian, right? (Unless, of course, you're a pothead.) After all, the general, practical correlation between violence and illegal drug use most certainly does exit, but such generalities shouldn't weigh-in on individual cases, especially when that individual testifies she doesn't even use illegal drugs and the court finds no evidence to doubt her...

But really, it wasn't about her situation at all: it was just another chance for progressive Leviathan to assert its illegal dominance once again...

Read the reported basis from which the court RULED their justification for totally violating the Constitution:



That's right: read it again...



The poor Corporal's best boy also seems confused about the 1st and 2nd being rights, when the 1st's and 2nd's entire purpose of being are simply and intentionally to overtly command Congress that they can make no law regarding or infringing either (respectively). Bad enough that one of Butthurt's saps can't get that straight...

BUT OUTRIGHT CRIMINAL FOR THE JUDICIARY TO DEEM THEMSELVES ABOVE THE VERY CONSTITUTION THEY MUST SWEAR TO SUBMIT TO, TOO!

Anti-2nd Amendmenters (read: anti-Americans) must be regaling from this latest, full-out illegal assault on the glorious Bill of Rights, as the nation moves even closer to certain civil war over the traitorous offense against and the patriotic defense of the Constitution itself...

US court upholds ban on buying guns for medical-marijuana users
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Court-upholds-gun-ban-for-people-who-use-medical-9196134.php

Horrors! Now every Joe Deerstalker who takes a fifth of Jack and a case of America on every hunting trip will have to think twice about upgrading to the latest model.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Horrors! Now every Joe Deerstalker who takes a fifth of Jack and a case of America on every hunting trip will have to think twice about upgrading to the latest model.

What's your degree in?

Law???

 

[Disgustipated]

What's your degree in?

Law???

What degree are you claimin' this morning, Cap'n?

 

[phrodeau]

I respond to eyer and ignore AJ. That's gotta sting.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not really.



You easily confirm what we suspected and that is, at best, you finished high school or earned a GED.

 

[Disgustipated]

"we".

lawlz.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Luk, if you graduated, it was a mercy graduation...



A Degradation of sorts.

 

[Disgustipated]

Luk, if you graduated, it was a mercy graduation...



A Degradation of sorts.

You only have a few more minutes until the male ordered bride needs to get to work, Cap'n. I suggest you not waste it on idiocracy like the above.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Feminazi Daze knows technology progresses, and so did the Founders. But she misses the boat totally when she ignores how militia furnished their own weapons and much else. Much of the time the Continental Congress furnished nothing to the common soldier. They were reduced to chronic theft much of the time, yet forced to be in the army where they went hungry, unshod, cold.

She's another stupid cow sighting.

Yeah, I wanted to respond to your post in an intelligent fashion; however, aside from attempting to call me a Nazi and mentioning your hucow fetish I really couldn't find anything factual to discuss with you.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah, I wanted to respond to your post in an intelligent fashion; however, aside from attempting to call me a Nazi and mentioning your hucow fetish I really couldn't find anything factual to discuss with you.

You're far too kind. The elderly are special but this one needs a musket to the neck.

 

[Bookishleigh]

You're far too kind. The elderly are special but this one needs a musket to the neck.

Perhaps one day euthanizing our elderly to put them out of their misery will be legal - until then, all we can do is watch them scratch their itchy asses and listen to them bitch about "the good ole days" before the evil "feminist movement" and "the darkies" demanding fair treatment.