That's because you are.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by mad_gater View Postand in religious terms the rainbow is a sign of God's promise never to flood the whole earth again...little religion triviaHeightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum
Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostIt is indeed, but until I saw it on the wikipedia page I had no idea.
Of course, we know it was just Odin out for a jaunt, looking for Frost Giants............sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pharaoh Hamenthotep View PostDon't forget about Baldr! He's the God of Beauty and Innocence.
It's almost as if the strict gender roles thing is a modern invention..sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostQuite, quite easily.
They have done it to voting rights, they would have no issue with doing it to gun rights.
Basically, see what Womble said.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostIf the government strictly adhered to the 2nd amendment and did not infringe upon the rights of citizens to be armed, how could they? The very premise is that the govt. can't restrict gun ownership.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by jelgate View PostUsing that definition, doesn't the very concept of libel and slander infringe the 1st Amendment
Do you mean using a strict constructionist view?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostEasy, it was in the brief you skimmed.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.
I and many others interpret the wording of the 2A as meaning that the need for a milita was the reason for the amendment, but no where does it say membership is required.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jelgate View PostI was pointing out no amendment has limitless power. The government "infringes" on our right s for the welfare of the community. The classic yelling fire in a movie theater for example
This is the problem with quoting just amendments and using them as the absolute law. You ignore the -mountains- of laws and interpretations that have sprung from their various constitutional basis. Slander and libel laws are example of restricting the absolute power of free speech, whereas something like say, citizens united is an example of adding the freedoms of the individuals to "organizations", even though they are not specifically covered by the 1st amendment.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostThat's how you read it. And that long winded web page you cited. It's how you interpret it.
I and many others interpret the wording of the 2A as meaning that the need for a milita was the reason for the amendment, but no where does it say membership is required.
(waits for the excuse that it is "implied"-.......................)
Your interpretation ignores the fact that at the penning of the bill of rights, the federal government was -forbidden- from having a standing army due to the fears of the founders of governmental power being enforced by force of arms. They were aware, however, that the states and the union would need a trained fighting force they could call upon "as needed", hence the militia. Even the argument that the NRA version puts forth that it is to "protect the citizenry from an out of control government" has no basis in the 2nd amendment, but more an interpretation of the possible results of the 1901 laws that -allowed- the federal government to maintain a permanent fighting force and has nothing to do whatsoever with the 2nd amendment.
Basically, your interpretation has no basis in historical fact and ignores the language conventions of the time, it's just "how people want to see it" -now-, and if the judiciary wanted to be strict constitutionalists and constructionists, they could indeed throw your argument out and strip your -perceived- right to have whatever "arms" you want unless you were part of a well regulated militia. Interestingly enough, it would be the erosion of your 1st amendment rights that would make that a lot easier to achieve (re-installing the 1798 alien and sedition laws, for example).
Or, putting it in a shorter form once more, see what Womble said.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post"[I]
I would dare to say, they are well on their way, but instead of restricting gun owner-ship, they are expanding. I mean, that one bit about mentally ill people being able to get a gun... Yeah, that's real smart.
How is it a good thing that these kind of people who are likely to act out are allowed to own guns?Go home aliens, go home!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by jelgate View PostUsing that definition, doesn't the very concept of libel and slander infringe the 1st Amendment
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostEasy, it was in the brief you skimmed.
Under a strict constructionist viewpoint of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms would be re-attached to the notion of a militia, instantly removing the -very- loose view pushed by the NRA.
Make sure you screen the militia to include like minded individuals, and away you go.
Or, in other words, see what Womble said.
Comment
Comment