RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:16:49 AM)

citizens outrank anyone in the military, well at least before this country was transformed into a mobocracy



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:18:19 AM)

The Constitution trumps both civilian and military law. If you would read the document, you would know that.

All of you, before you make another post, read the fucking constitution, from beginning to end. You will learn much you do not know.



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:21:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Right , being a civilian doesn't give you the right to carry on base.

Correct, it is being a person that does.


[sm=champ.gif]



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:23:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

The Constitution trumps both civilian and military law. If you would read the document, you would know that.

All of you, before you make another post, read the fucking constitution, from beginning to end. You will learn much you do not know.



want to see a much better one? Read the russian constitution! [sm=couch.gif]

of course they use theres for toilet paper too.



Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:26:22 AM)

I'd advise you not to use that line while trying to carry a gun onto a military base. It won't get you very far.



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:37:56 AM)

you need to keep in mind, there is a huge difference between dejure and defacto, yes I know what it is, I talk about how it was designed not the corrupt pile of shit it turned into.

kennedy, 911, both have a long list of dead people because they did the right thing and reported what really happened



LadyPact -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:41:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
It's simple. I read the fucking Constitution, something you apparently have not. What's more, "Uncle Sam" has no property, it all belongs to the people, not the government.

Well, if you'd like to take a crack at it, I'll fully support you. All you have to do is walk into any Commissary or PX, with a firearm, and your defense can be how Uncle Sam doesn't own it.

Just in my way of thinking, Constitutional rights are not absolute. I have free speech, but I can not intentionally incite panic by shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I can, voluntarily or involuntarily, forfeit my right to bear arms, if I would happen to be a convicted felon, child abuser, or some other type of domestic violence perpetrator.

How does the Canadian military handle such things?





Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:46:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
It's simple. I read the fucking Constitution, something you apparently have not. What's more, "Uncle Sam" has no property, it all belongs to the people, not the government.

Well, if you'd like to take a crack at it, I'll fully support you. All you have to do is walk into any Commissary or PX, with a firearm, and your defense can be how Uncle Sam doesn't own it.

Just in my way of thinking, Constitutional rights are not absolute. I have free speech, but I can not intentionally incite panic by shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. I can, voluntarily or involuntarily, forfeit my right to bear arms, if I would happen to be a convicted felon, child abuser, or some other type of domestic violence perpetrator.

How does the Canadian military handle such things?






yep


None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe



slave girl!



Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 1:09:19 AM)

I will be generous tonite and do some volunteer public service work and explain how it is supposed to be before the asswipe ZioJizz congress, legislatures, and the just-us club stuck their big red white and blue dick square up your asses.

This country was intended to be a nation of laws not a nation of statutes (just like england).

Constitutional rights are not absolute.

In fact they are absolute, in a dejure rule of law government, however you live in a mobocracy where any absolute right undermines the power of the mobocracy, and we cant have that.

Here is what the constitution/bor says, exactly:


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.

AND:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


There so you see that? There are no stipulations. Do you know what that means?

That means in order for you to be correct the constitution would have to read like this:

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

AND:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed EXCEPT if you are a convicted felon, EXCEPT if you are a child abuser,.EXCEPT if you are a domestic violence perpetrator.

Now if you can point it out to me where the people stipulated to all the shit you claim is in the constitution then I concede, until then sorry the constitution does not say any of that shit and there is no way in hell it can possibly mean what you were programmed by the ZioJizz Just-Us SCROTUM mobocracy club to believe.

You see none of that shit is in the contract, you were programmed to believe its in the contract when there is nothing there at all but the bullshit planted in your brain by think gubmint tanks.


think about it what the fuck does child abuse have to do with owning a fucking gun? Not a damn thing, so their solution to child abuse is take away your fucking gun, now thats logical right? [8|] Its been said england will take this country back and never fire a shot, guess what....





LadyPact -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 2:05:20 AM)

Does the Constitution stand alone or does it work with everything else?

What is one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court?

What is the point of criminal law?


ETA: Nice edit. [;)] I get it. It's late and we're probably typing at the same time.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
think about it what the fuck does child abuse have to do with owning a fucking gun? Not a damn thing, so their solution to child abuse is take away your fucking gun, now thats logical right? [8|] Its been said england will take this country back and never fire a shot, guess what....

It's not what I would term a solution. It's supposed to be a preventative step to deter escalation.




Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 2:24:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Does the Constitution stand alone or does it work with everything else?

What is one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court?

What is the point of criminal law?




I cant get it to work with my toaster, every what every thing else?

Oh the courts, yeh
During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: "I take my orders from England. This is not a law this court goes by."

What do you think the purpose of scrotum is?

Tell us, criminal law what about it?

You want me to guess what the fuck you are talking about, make your claim, that is the best way to rebut something, wth a counter claim.



LadyPact -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 3:55:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I cant get it to work with my toaster, every what every thing else?

If your toaster starts interpreting law, the Constitution, or anything else, I promise to bend over and kiss it's shiny, metal butt.

quote:

Oh the courts, yeh
During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: "I take my orders from England. This is not a law this court goes by."

Aren't those the folks who are in their fifth appeal now? I believe I read about them on some kind of article about "Eighteen Celebrities Who Are In Jail." Not my normal reading material but I was trying to 'place the face' on the person in the main pic.

quote:

What do you think the purpose of scrotum is?

Would you disagree that one of the primary purposes of SCOTUS (and stop typing like a four year old that can't pronounce terms correctly) is to interpret law, the Constitution, and acts of Congress, such as the UCMJ?

quote:

Tell us, criminal law what about it?

Let's try like this. Can you accept that, no matter how much I could scream until I'd be blue in the face about my right to bear arms, I absolutely can be incarcerated by stepping one foot into a Commissary with a firearm? The catch 22 about this is, it's also illegal to store a firearm in any POV (personally owned vehicle) on a military installation. Since I've never mastered the skill to telepathically suspend the firearm twelve feet in the air while I shop for eggs and milk, perhaps you have a solution.

quote:

You want me to guess what the fuck you are talking about, make your claim, that is the best way to rebut something, wth a counter claim.

Pretty much the same thing. If YOU are feeling real comfy about your Constitutional right to carry a firearm wherever you please, I'll stand up for ya. Heck, I'll even be a financial contributor to your legal defense fund.



PeonForHer -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:30:41 AM)

FR

Small and doubtless stupid question as an aside about the US constitution: Where it talks of the right to bear arms, it doesn't make an exclusion for children (or not that I've found, at any rate). Since the Constitution trumps all laws, does this mean that, for instance, it's the absolute and legally enshrined right of all young children to carry guns into kindergarten with them?



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:51:40 AM)

quote:

Constitutional rights are not absolute

Where in the Constitution does it say that?
quote:

How does the Canadian military handle such things?

Completely irrelevant, Canada has a very different Constitution.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:54:46 AM)

quote:

Does the Constitution stand alone or does it work with everything else?

It stands above everything else, and everything else must be in accordance with it. That is the whole point of a Constitution.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 4:57:55 AM)

quote:

Since the Constitution trumps all laws, does this mean that, for instance, it's the absolute and legally enshrined right of all young children to carry guns into kindergarten with them?

That depends on the definition of "people" used in the interpretation.



PeonForHer -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 5:34:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Since the Constitution trumps all laws, does this mean that, for instance, it's the absolute and legally enshrined right of all young children to carry guns into kindergarten with them?

That depends on the definition of "people" used in the interpretation.


This is why supreme courts with so much power are there, isn't it - to interpret the Constitution?

I've never heard any great argument that children are not people. (On the other hand I've heard, very frequently, the argument that foetuses are people.) All very strange: we all start as people, till we get born, then we're not people. Then we're people again once we're adults.



Kaliko -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 5:58:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Since the Constitution trumps all laws, does this mean that, for instance, it's the absolute and legally enshrined right of all young children to carry guns into kindergarten with them?

That depends on the definition of "people" used in the interpretation.


This is why supreme courts with so much power are there, isn't it - to interpret the Constitution?

I've never heard any great argument that children are not people. (On the other hand I've heard, very frequently, the argument that foetuses are people.) All very strange: we all start as people, till we get born, then we're not people. Then we're people again once we're adults.



Safe (or "gun-free") school zones - a perimeter around each school property in which firearms are prohibited (except in certain cases such as law enforcement personnel) - are how we can enforce the expectation that gun-toting kindergarten kids don't make it past the bus stop. I believe these are federally designated zones, established a few decades ago.

However, we still don't generally allow kindergarten kids to carry guns around outside of school. Nor do we allow them the fundamental right of voting. The constitution dictates that people aren't denied their rights; however, "reasonable restrictions" (as, I suppose, interpreted by our Congress and justice system) are just that. Reasonable. One hopes.




jlf1961 -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 7:13:34 AM)

Kaliko, do not take this personally, but...

Gun free zones insure one thing, law abiding citizens will not have guns when some dick head with no respect for the law or the individual's right to life, liberty etc shows up and starts shooting.

Hence the reason that buildings in these 'gun free zones,' nine times out of ten, have metal detectors that are there to make sure no one brings a gun (or any other weapon for that matter) into the buildings in these zones.


There was a funny foot note in history way back in the 70's.

A small town that was technically a suburb of Atlanta Ga, passed an ordinance that required every one that could legally own a gun, purchase and openly carry a pistol.

This was in response to a spike in violent crimes committed by people who actually lived in Atlanta.

Of course some left wing, public safety concerned fuckwit got a bunch of anti gun shit for brains people together and filed a lawsuit (didnt matter that the one that started the fucking lawsuit didnt even live in the town) and low and behold, the ordinance was repealed (after costing the small town a shit ton defending it) because the town could not afford the legal costs to defend itself in court.

Funny thing, during the three months the ordinance was in place, violent crime actually dropped by about 40% while violent crime in neighboring towns went up significantly.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375