It is currently November 21st, 2017, 1:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 13th, 2009, 3:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:38 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Dalaran
It's a good thing our constitution states otherwise. Also, driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

_________________
--Azurai

Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 13th, 2009, 5:18 pm 

Joined: May 31st, 2007, 1:30 pm
Posts: 94
Quote:
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.


Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 13th, 2009, 5:31 pm 
Homosexual Juggernaut
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:52 pm
Posts: 2727
Location: Poughkeepsie, New York
Image

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 13th, 2009, 9:59 pm 

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 7:57 pm
Posts: 127
Azurai wrote:
Very easy: Crimes committed where a gun was in a vehicle owned by the person, even if the vehicle is off-site, is considered an armed offense. Also, how many random rapes in central park do you suppose follow the same principles as bank robberies? You have no idea what the source of those statistics even is.


Of course I do; they're from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In any case, your comments amount to little more than misdirection, and unsubstantiated attacks on the credibility of the statistics in question. Sure, they might be as you say; but without any evidence either way, they could very well be entirely accurate. Unless you're going to assume or assert that all statistics are mis-truths, simply stating that they could be wrong achieves little.
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 13th, 2009, 10:15 pm 

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 7:57 pm
Posts: 127
Mirkendargen wrote:
Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)


"The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"


The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 14th, 2009, 6:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 31st, 2008, 6:00 pm
Posts: 489
Mirkendargen wrote:
Quote:
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.


Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)


There was a quote reasonable definition of arms when the constitution was written: Any type of weapon a standard military soldier would normally equip and carry.

_________________
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd30 ... 610934.jpg
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 14th, 2009, 6:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 31st, 2008, 6:00 pm
Posts: 489
Iniliara wrote:
Mirkendargen wrote:
Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)


"The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"


The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).



Yawn.

By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger

_________________
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd30 ... 610934.jpg
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 17th, 2009, 4:19 pm 

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 7:57 pm
Posts: 127
Xizorz wrote:
Yawn.

By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.


They sure do, but I'm not sure the relevance. The origin doesn't change the fact that they're contradictory with your constitutional freedom of speech.
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 17th, 2009, 4:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:38 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Dalaran
Iniliara wrote:
"The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"


The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).


1. Yes, that is the result of politicians gaining too much power in the US. Contrary to the belief of most modern government officials, the Constitution is NOT a living document except in the sense that it can be amended. Most people, especially judges, seem to think that means it is open to interpretation when in fact, it's very plainly written.

2. Uhh, you can slander people all you want and print false stories. It isn't illegal (except when it's in the courtroom or official proceedings), but it is grounds for a civil suit (and in some rare cases criminal) if doing so causes harm to someone. Also note that a suit against someone for slander is very hard to win due to the first amendment, though it is possible if it is established that it was done in a malicious way specifically to damage someone's character or business. Also, I fail to see how copyright laws have anything to do with free speech. I don't recall a paragraph giving people the right to reproduce the works of others for profit in there.

3. Examples please?

4. Ditto, what exactly are you talking about?

Also, contrary to popular belief, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove a point via statistics, not those trying to dispute their lack of legitimacy due to no sources being supplied.

I can make up/repeat/twist statistics all day long and claim they come from important organizations but that doesn't make a prima facie case in my favor, which is something the liberal media also has yet to grasp.

_________________
--Azurai

Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 17th, 2009, 4:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:38 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Dalaran
Iniliara wrote:
Sure, they might be as you say; but without any evidence either way, they could very well be entirely accurate.


Dumbest statement of the year award. Also, all gods exist, cows are from the planet Venus and we actually evolved from plants. And M Night Shamanalanamaym is a good writer.

_________________
--Azurai

Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 18th, 2009, 6:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 31st, 2008, 6:00 pm
Posts: 489
Iniliara wrote:
Xizorz wrote:
Yawn.

By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.


They sure do, but I'm not sure the relevance. The origin doesn't change the fact that they're contradictory with your constitutional freedom of speech.


No, they aren't, unless you bury your head in the sand and ignore any context or rationality. The Federalist papers and related documents relate the original intent of the people who wrote the document, and they specifically detailed their view on what certain provisions mean and don't mean. None of them would have considered slander to be upheld by any type of freedom of speech.


Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.

And copyright laws? Well, given that Article I provides an explicit mechanism for patents and copyrights, it would be rather absurd for Amendment I to prevent Congress from using this mechanism.

_________________
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd30 ... 610934.jpg
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 18th, 2009, 12:14 pm 
Homosexual Juggernaut
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:52 pm
Posts: 2727
Location: Poughkeepsie, New York
Xizorz wrote:
Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.


That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 18th, 2009, 2:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 31st, 2008, 6:00 pm
Posts: 489
Aus wrote:
Xizorz wrote:
Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.


That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!


What, that those groups of people have no reason or interest in looking at the original intent of the document or the people who wrote it?

They admit to it; it's called their Living Constitution theory.

_________________
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd30 ... 610934.jpg
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 18th, 2009, 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: February 18th, 2009, 7:39 pm
Posts: 489
Location: Richmond Heights, OH
The constitution was also originally written a long time ago, and while a gross departure is not OK, interpretation (in fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court) certainly is.

_________________
Short summary of every Jewish holiday: they tried to kill us, we survived, let's eat!
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
[Offline]
 Post subject: Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
PostPosted: August 18th, 2009, 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:38 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Dalaran
Xyrm wrote:
The constitution was also originally written a long time ago, and while a gross departure is not OK, interpretation (in fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court) certainly is.


Uh, no? It's in English, though I know most people can't get over the fact that the letter s looks like an f so they think it's YE OLDE SPEAKE.

To be frank, the supreme court has way, way too much power because of the 'interpretation' that has become common place in the past century.

If you read the second amendment in the context in which it was written, it's quite clear what the right to bear arms referred to then and still should today: commercially available firearms, roughly equivalent or in some cases identical to army general issue battle rifles and sidearms. Do I think a citizen in good standing should be able to own a basic weapon like an M16? Yes. Do I think most citizens should be able to own a SAW or a flamethrower? No. Those are specialized weapons developed for specific uses in the military, not battle rifles. The second amendment was NOT implemented for the sake of people hunting game, that was merely a fact of life back then in most communities. It exists for the government to fear the people and not vice versa, which is unfortunately no longer true because our 'well regulated militia' is now segregated almost completely from the regular citizenry.

_________________
--Azurai

Image
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron