RIGHT versus…(wait for it…) WRONG!

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
The so-called ‘Left’ in American political definitions, is waning for lack of a moral and ethical foundation.

The ‘D’ after a candidates name stands for DUMB:

The Associated Press reported that Mr. Greene was arrested in November and is facing a felony obscenity charge; he is accused of showing pornography to a University of South Carolina student. He had been discharged “involuntarily” from the Army and showed no signs of having waged an actual campaign in recent months — no advertising, no staff, no money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12greene.html

Mr. Greene is Black; his only qualification for public office.

The ‘Dumb’ Partey’ (not a typo), counts on the ignorance of its’ Black supporters, nearly 90% of all blacks vote ‘D’, in every election.

The next supportive group, which the ‘D’s pursue incessantly are Hispanic legal’s and illegal’s who barely speak English and who have a heritage of oppressive, dictatorial and Catholic rule, which tends to make them seek to become, ‘dependents’ on a benevolent government.

Outside exploitation of ethnic minorities, the ‘Dumb’ Party looks to workers who tithe to Union Gods to speak for them as they have no independent voice of their own. Hispanics and Unions regularly give 70 to 80% of their vote to the ‘D’ Party.

Here is the ‘fun’ part of this Post: the intellectual elite of the undefined Left, are not Black, nor are they Hispanic; although, in the case of government teachers, may be Union people.

The political ideals of the ‘DUMB’ Party, are easy to summarize: they support every program to increase the size and influence of government, all over the world.

Instead of free market, private health care, they want government controlled and directed programs; even though each and every nation that has imposed socialized medicine on its’ people has failed.

The ‘DUMB’ Party, wants to ‘save the Earth! These are people with so little self esteem they seldom change their underwear once a week, who are concerned about the environment of their concrete dens in metropolitan areas. Few have ever seen a real living domestic animal besides a yapping little mutt or a fat lazy cat.

That lack of personal, individual self esteem used to be salved by joining a cult or other religious group; not much has changed, they now pay homage to the Sierra Club. The ACLU, and any other cultish entity that absolves the individual from personal responsibility.

Social issues; what rational person could ever condone the murder of an innocent child still in the womb? Only the “D’s hold that honor.

Homosexuals…that play no role in the wider scheme of human history, save a footnote of aberrations, offer no genetic continuity to the progress of the species, and who have corrupted and continue to corrupt the entire spectrum of the art world from music to literature.

I could write much more, with continuing examples, but you either get it, or you do not. The L’s the “D;’s are morally bankrupt; they have no sense of human compassion and no sense of right and wrong, good or evil.

For those who know of my atheism, it may surprise you to take note of the Ten Commandments, which I append to this missal. Those ten moral imperatives are a distillation of thousands of years of human history and are repeated in almost every form of religion. They remain, to this day, the guiding force in perhaps the lives of nine out of ten human’s alive today.

Why?

And why does the ‘L’ & the ‘D’, discard all of human history, abandon a species long quest for human individual liberty, and revert to the tribal customs of the past?

***
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'



The following is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the "Bill of Rights", these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Each amendment's title is linked to a set of detailed annotations presented on the Findlaw website.

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

II. Right to keep and bear arms

III. Conditions for quarters of soldiers

IV. Right of search and seizure regulated

V. Provisons concerning prosecution

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

VII. Right to a trial by jury

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment

IX. Rule of construction of Constitution

X. Rights of the States under Constitution




I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


II. Right to keep and bear arms

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.
TOP

III. Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV. Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V. Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII. Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX. Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

~~~~~

Therein above, a basic foundation of consideration for morals and ethics and the political expression of such.

Should a stunning rejection of Obama styled Socialism occur this fall, as predicted, perhaps this will give you a place to begin to understand what is essential to human life.

Amicus Veritas
 
Last edited:
I write on this forum for my own reasons, regardless of the anathema towards my Posts, I know which fourteen readers clicked on without leaving a comment.

:)

Amicus
 
The right gleefully and consistently violates all Twenty of these, every time they get a chance - should they ever demonstrate the slightest respect for any of it, then they might appeal to somebody besides you Kool-Aid drinkers.
 
I realise that a 200 year old language may be a bit "strange" to the modern eye, but can someone run this by me in decent English please?

II. Right to keep and bear arms

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.


It just seems to me to have a word missing (don't know what that word is).
If you take out: ,being necessary to the security of a free State,
you wind up with:-

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It strikes me that the subject of a Militia is separate from the bearing of Arms.
.
 
Okay, here it is, pay attention.

In America every male citizen between 18-45 is a member of the militia. Thats it in a nutshell.
 
I realise that a 200 year old language may be a bit "strange" to the modern eye, but can someone run this by me in decent English please?

II. Right to keep and bear arms

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.


It just seems to me to have a word missing (don't know what that word is).
If you take out: ,being necessary to the security of a free State,
you wind up with:-

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It strikes me that the subject of a Militia is separate from the bearing of Arms.
.

After your edit of the second amendment, you just have two unrelated clauses. If you want to keep editing, cut out the first clause, too.

The result is The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I think this is the part you find "strange."
 
After your edit of the second amendment, you just have two unrelated clauses. If you want to keep editing, cut out the first clause, too.

The result is The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I think this is the part you find "strange."

If we edit it more we get "The right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." Rawr.
 
Okay, here it is, pay attention.

In America every male citizen between 18-45 is a member of the militia. Thats it in a nutshell.
And now that he's got your attention, he'd like you to focus it on his penis, now stirring from its dormant flaccidity as he imagines every male citizen between 18-45 in really snappy uniforms.
 
I realise that a 200 year old language may be a bit "strange" to the modern eye, but can someone run this by me in decent English please?

II. Right to keep and bear arms

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.


It just seems to me to have a word missing (don't know what that word is).
If you take out: ,being necessary to the security of a free State,
you wind up with:-

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It strikes me that the subject of a Militia is separate from the bearing of Arms.

.

~~~

Handley Page, et al....let me attempt to clarify the concept by posing an at large question: do you have the right to defend yourself from that which threatens your life or well being?

Do you have the right to defend yourself against a marauding Bear or Lion?

The right to keep and bear arms is not 'given' by the Amendment, it is acknowledged to be an innate right and protected by the amendment.

If anyone can rationally argue that the do not have the right to defend their own life by any means available; I would very much like to read that argument.

Amicus
 
Same old rant, so why comment?

Og

The 'D' and the 'L', go on and on insisting they have the right to control your life for the good of society.

When someone chooses to defend the concepts of individual rights to life, liberty and property, it is called a 'rant'.

As the advocates of command authority are unable to defend their premises, they, like Ogg, simply pick up their lacey panties and crawl back under their rocks.

Such a deal!

;)

Amicus
 
~~~

Handley Page, et al....let me attempt to clarify the concept by posing an at large question: do you have the right to defend yourself from that which threatens your life or well being?

Do you have the right to defend yourself against a marauding Bear or Lion?

The right to keep and bear arms is not 'given' by the Amendment, it is acknowledged to be an innate right and protected by the amendment.

If anyone can rationally argue that the do not have the right to defend their own life by any means available; I would very much like to read that argument.

Amicus

This is old language with old meaning. In a modern context we don't have militias. Our "arms" "necessary to the security of a free state" are our means to defend the country aka our military. I fully believe in a well trained, well armed military. In other contexts, bear arms has meant defending oneself, but even in this context we have a police force. Those are our "arms". Especially with the amount of highly advanced non-lethal weapons available there is no reason for the average person to own a gun. Especially not automatic rifles, sniper rifles, hand cannons, machine guns, etc.
 
I realise that a 200 year old language may be a bit "strange" to the modern eye, but can someone run this by me in decent English please?

II. Right to keep and bear arms

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.


It just seems to me to have a word missing (don't know what that word is).
If you take out: ,being necessary to the security of a free State,
you wind up with:-

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It strikes me that the subject of a Militia is separate from the bearing of Arms.
.
I've had people threaten to shoot me because, although I fully spport the right to bear arms, I still maintain that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comma, is the independent clause.
 
This is old language with old meaning. In a modern context we don't have militias. Our "arms" "necessary to the security of a free state" are our means to defend the country aka our military. I fully believe in a well trained, well armed military. In other contexts, bear arms has meant defending oneself, but even in this context we have a police force. Those are our "arms". Especially with the amount of highly advanced non-lethal weapons available there is no reason for the average person to own a gun. Especially not automatic rifles, sniper rifles, hand cannons, machine guns, etc.

~~~

The error in logic you make is that of a false premise. The right to bear arms is not a function of the State, it is not intended to protect 'the state', in fact, it serves just the opposite. An armed citizenry retains the right to overthrown an oppressive government.

Perhaps you would address the basic concept I posed: do you have the innate right to defend your own life?

Amicus
 
The debate about the right to bear arms in the US is pointless because no US politician, Republican or Democrat, is going to challenge the gun lobby.

There are too many US voters who support the right to bear arms.

Introducing any meaningful control on gun ownership would be political suicide.

Og
 
The debate about the right to bear arms in the US is pointless because no US politician, Republican or Democrat, is going to challenge the gun lobby.

There are too many US voters who support the right to bear arms.

Introducing any meaningful control on gun ownership would be political suicide.


Og

~~~

Why does Ogg employ the time honored whining of socialists, 'that people are just not good enough to make total equality work....?'

It is the people in the United States, unlike moldy London, that understand they have a basic human right to self defense and they need not get permission from government. The 'gun lobby' and 'politics', has very little to do with basic innate and unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

You folks really don't have a clue about the nature of Americans or the nature of human individual freedom, and that is sad. You will, as history dictates, learn your lessons the hard way.

Amicus
 
~~~

Why does Ogg employ the time honored whining of socialists, 'that people are just not good enough to make total equality work....?'

It is the people in the United States, unlike moldy London, that understand they have a basic human right to self defense and they need not get permission from government. The 'gun lobby' and 'politics', has very little to do with basic innate and unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

You folks really don't have a clue about the nature of Americans or the nature of human individual freedom, and that is sad. You will, as history dictates, learn your lessons the hard way.

Amicus

Sorry to inform you, but you are completely wrong about having a gun being an inalienable right. Not that you buy into your own bs because it is just another sad attempt to frame a political stance into a morality issue.
 
~~~

Why does Ogg employ the time honored whining of socialists, 'that people are just not good enough to make total equality work....?'

It is the people in the United States, unlike moldy London, that understand they have a basic human right to self defense and they need not get permission from government. The 'gun lobby' and 'politics', has very little to do with basic innate and unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

You folks really don't have a clue about the nature of Americans or the nature of human individual freedom, and that is sad. You will, as history dictates, learn your lessons the hard way.

Amicus

Yo, Twit. when you want to go forward, you put the car in 'D' (Democrat); if you want to go backward, you put the car in 'R' (Republicant)
So parse it any way ya want but the drive shaft does not lie...................
 
~~~

Handley Page, et al....let me attempt to clarify the concept by posing an at large question: do you have the right to defend yourself from that which threatens your life or well being?

Do you have the right to defend yourself against a marauding Bear or Lion?

The right to keep and bear arms is not 'given' by the Amendment, it is acknowledged to be an innate right and protected by the amendment.

If anyone can rationally argue that the do not have the right to defend their own life by any means available; I would very much like to read that argument.

Amicus

You might be able to read it but you sure wouldn't debate it....no balls......no nuts....no ideas....you just ain't got none.......so keep flappin' them gums.....
 
Sorry to inform you, but you are completely wrong about having a gun being an inalienable right. Not that you buy into your own bs because it is just another sad attempt to frame a political stance into a morality issue.

~~~

That, of course is the intent of this thread, to point out that each and every issue is a moral issue at heart and the left has no moral foundation; thus, are wrong on every issue.

It is immoral to advocate disarming the people, to leave them helpless to defend their hearth and home.

I can surely understand why you choose not to call upon your moral principles to support your specious arguments, you have no moral principles; and that too, is the point of the thread.

After forty years, at least, a hundred with perspective, the progressive left wing philosophy has been found wanting and inadequate to address the serious moral issues of our time.

You might read those ten commandments and realize that man has been refining the concepts of moral rightness since the beginning of time.

You, and the left in general, simply avoid moral premises and flaunt your amorality as if it were a virtue.

amicus
 
Last edited:
~~~

That, of course is the intent of this thread, to point out that each and every issue is a moral issue at heart and the left has no moral foundation; thus, are wrong on every issue.

It is immoral to advocate disarming the people, to leave them helpless to defend their hearth and home.

I can surely understand why you choose not to call upon your moral principles to support your specious arguments, you have no moral principles; and that too, is the point of the thread.

After forty years, at least, a hundred with perspective, the progressive left wing philosophy has been found wanting and inadequate to address the serious moral issues of out time.

You might read those ten commandments and realize that man has been refining the concepts of moral rightness since the beginning of time.

You, and the left in general, simply avoid moral premises and flaunt your amorality as if it were a virtue.

amicus

More unsubstantiated bullshit - delivered with all of the enthusiasm of the pizza-kid.....amorality is a virtue......and the left is right.................the ten commandments were authored by the left wing.....there's real family values there.....not hate and stupidity.......you really are quite the coward and moral retard.............
 
~~~

That, of course is the intent of this thread, to point out that each and every issue is a moral issue at heart and the left has no moral foundation; thus, are wrong on every issue.

It is immoral to advocate disarming the people, to leave them helpless to defend their hearth and home.

I can surely understand why you choose not to call upon your moral principles to support your specious arguments, you have no moral principles; and that too, is the point of the thread.

After forty years, at least, a hundred with perspective, the progressive left wing philosophy has been found wanting and inadequate to address the serious moral issues of out time.

You might read those ten commandments and realize that man has been refining the concepts of moral rightness since the beginning of time.

You, and the left in general, simply avoid moral premises and flaunt your amorality as if it were a virtue.

amicus

Do you actually believe your BS? You don't need a gun to defend yourself. Especially when you live in a society where trained law enforcement officers are there to protect you. That is the whole point of a society and not a state of anarchy where each man has to defend himself against the wild world. You have a pathetic little twisted mind.

I guess those commandments you speak of include.

"Thou shalt kill." - If you are gonna have a gun you must intend to actually use it right?

"Thou shalt abandon your neighbors." - Well, any neighbors who aren't as rich as you and can't afford insurance, food, or shelter.

Also, you are allowed to judge others (another thing the Bible is against) and denote them as either immoral or lesser than you. It is no wonder so many people have you blocked.
 
Do you actually believe your BS? You don't need a gun to defend yourself. Especially when you live in a society where trained law enforcement officers are there to protect you. That is the whole point of a society and not a state of anarchy where each man has to defend himself against the wild world. You have a pathetic little twisted mind.

I guess those commandments you speak of include.

"Thou shalt kill." - If you are gonna have a gun you must intend to actually use it right?

"Thou shalt abandon your neighbors." - Well, any neighbors who aren't as rich as you and can't afford insurance, food, or shelter.

Also, you are allowed to judge others (another thing the Bible is against) and denote them as either immoral or lesser than you. It is no wonder so many people have you blocked.[/
QUOTE]

~~~

Your first paragraph: are you totally unaware that most women carry pepper spray and mace in their purses and in the past decades, more women than men have qualified on the pistol range of every major city in the US.

Home Invasion crimes have been climbing for years, to the point where people invest thousands of dollars in protection systems. Road rage is epidemic in some areas, and yes the Police do eventually arrive, after the fact.

Weapons, like leaded night sticks, switch blades, knives of all kinds, are all extensions of the reach of a man's arm and a firearm extends his range of protection to an even greater perimeter.

No, it is not anarchy, and if you studied anything about criminal behavior, you would realize that a well armed household or person, that is known to be well armed, acts as a deterrent factor stopping criminals before they attack.

I have read and watched hundreds upon hundreds of futuristic literary visions that chord well with your apparent vision of a totally controlled society where the 'guardians' of your safety are ever present and protect your every move. Unfortunately, what you do not see, is the total loss of individual privacy and freedom when you submit to a totally controlled environment where you are always safe.

"Thou shalt abandon your neighbors." - Well, any neighbors who aren't as rich as you and can't afford insurance, food, or shelter.

There have been thousands of benevolent schemes to achieve equality between all people and all have failed and will always fail...do you have any idea why they fail?

African American society has been virtually destroyed by the well intentioned benevolence of the 'great society' of Lyndon Baines Johnson; affirmative action createdf more racial division than ever existed before it and the recent housing debacle was brought about by that same benevolence in trying to bring unqualified buyers into the housing market.

The average Cuban, in that controlled communist society, earns $20 US dollars per month and all are equal in the degree of poverty and misery they suffer, except for the Commissars that live high on the hog, as they always do in a command society.

Criminals still manage to gain access to firearms while the innocent public is forbidden to own a weapon in most of your effete European cultures, and criminals will always find a way around whatever gun control methods that are used.

And yes, I certainly judge the acts of those who perpetrated a Holocaust, I judge the Islamic code that stones a woman to death for adultry, I judge all inhumane acts against the individual as any moral person would and should.

The worst crime of all is to rob a man of his individual self esteem in the sordid name of the collective, which seems to be your upspoken goal.

You have an Utopian dream in your mind wherein the Lion lay with the Lamb and men do not compete with each other and nature is never an adversary. It is a dream world afforded you by the labor of men who understand the nature of the species and of reality.

Perhaps one fine day you will open your mind and seek truth.

Amicus
 
The Supremes say we have a right to own guns so I guess THAT debate is settled.

I worked with cops for a long time and will never trust my life to a cop. Every cop, everywhere, ranks going home alive and keeping her job as the highest priorities.
 
Back
Top