User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:36:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Remind me again, homie, which Constitutional amendment reads,
"The right of the polesmoker to pack fudge, shall be infringed" Also, "ebonics swearing" really shows your intelligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:37:55 AM EDT
[#2]
What part of their decision is unconstitutional? Seems you suffer from "I believe,... I feel,... I think..." disease like most liberals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:39:26 AM EDT
[#3]
LOL
If it weren't for the 14th admendment, the bill of rights wouldn't apply to state law! What does that mean you say? The state can walk all over your free speech and the feds cant do shit. States rights are important but not when it comes to civil liberties. Do a some reading about selective incorporation before you go singing from the mountain tops about states rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:40:06 AM EDT
[#4]
address the issue
this supreme court dicision makes presedence for the supreme goobers telling states they cant control their own gun laws you want the fed govt protecting the fugpackers? well you also get the fed govt overruling states rights on guns laws |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:41:26 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Remind me again, homie, which Constitutional amendment reads, "The right of the polesmoker to pack fudge, shall be infringed" Also, "ebonics swearing" really shows your intelligence. The exact same arguement the gun grabbers use. "Show me where in the 2nd Admendment is says individuals have the right to own assualt rifles" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:47:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: address the issue this supreme court dicision makes presedence for the supreme goobers telling states they cant control their own gun laws you want the fed govt protecting the fugpackers? well you also get the fed govt overruling states rights on guns laws I want the fed govt protecting my CIVIL LIBERTIES. In places like DC, Chicago, KA, NJ, etc this would be a good thing. Those people are denied their 2nd admendment protection. And last time i checked there was a friendly goverment agency called the BATF which doesn't seem the least bit concerned about regulating firearms [:e] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:48:07 AM EDT
[#7]
[i]what part of states rights do you dumazzes not get??[/i]
Um, the states are prohibited by the Constitution from infringing on the Bill of Rights just like the Federal Govt is. When they do, and if their state supreme court doesn't smack them down, then it's up to the US Supreme Court to do it for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:49:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: address the issue this supreme court dicision makes presedence for the supreme goobers telling states they cant control their own gun laws you want the fed govt protecting the fugpackers? well you also get the fed govt overruling states rights on guns laws Well, since it's the U.S. Constitution that says we have the right to keep and bear arms, I'd really like to see SCOTUS get the states in line and hold state statutes infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights unconstitutional. I suppose, since you're so up on state's rights, that it would be okay for a state to completely forbid the possession of any weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:51:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Some people just dont fucking get it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:52:04 AM EDT
[#10]
I think it's [b]GREAT[/b] that the SCOTUS ruled this way. Their decision is firmly based in the principles of the Constitution.
If the court is basing decisions on [b][red]THE CONSTITUTION[/red][/b]( [:o] Oh My !), then I think that we're all better off. Read the Second Amendment and then the 14th amendment. And then think about your statement again. This is GOOD for gun owners. Amendment II 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. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:56:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Um, the states are prohibited by the Constitution from infringing on the Bill of Rights just like the Federal Govt is. When they do, and if their state supreme court doesn't smack them down, then it's up to the US Supreme Court to do it for them. if that so, then why did states all pass their own bill of rights LONG before the 14th was ever passed?? the original BoR 10 amendments handcuffed the fed gov't on restricting SPECIFIC rights, then recognized the states several rights to legislate to their own satisfaction my ideal situation is where every state makes up their own laws on every issue. every issue then has FIFTY different solution. NOT ONE GREAT BIG FEDERAL ONE. if you want to play the incorporation game with teh 14th, then you also get fed gov't overruling the states on gun laws if the fed govt can say private consesual sex between adults is 100% constitutional protected, then you give the fed gov't the right to determine how "consensual" is defined. and you don't have the liberty you thought you had is a 15 year old sex with a 40 yr old consensual? you just gave the fed govt the right to determine that SHORT SIGHTED |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 11:57:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: The exact same arguement the gun grabbers use. "Show me where in the 2nd Admendment is says individuals have the right to own assualt rifles" I'll raise you one: I'll show you a 1930's Supreme Court ruling that says sawed off shotguns are illegal, but CURRENT MILITARY HARDWARE isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:01:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: my ideal situation is where every state makes up their own laws on every issue. every issue then has FIFTY different solution. NOT ONE GREAT BIG FEDERAL ONE. Talk about short sighted. What effect would your little solution have on something like interstate commerce? California bans trucks that don't run on electric power. Illinois says trucks have to have a certain type of mudflap on them, and Indiana says a different type. Georgia allows semi-trucks that are 48 feet long, but Florida only allows 45 feet long. Hell, let's just all print our own currency while we're at it. It's the [b]UNITED[/b] States of America, not the "50 Individual States that Happen to Be Located on the Same Continent" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:04:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Amendment XIV Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; the state legislature and state supreme court both passing and ruling the anti sodomy law as constitutional according to the STATE constitution IS due frikken process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. law says every body gotta stop sodomizing how is that NOT equal protection?? and in answer to the question above, YES, an individual state SHOULD be able to COMPLETELY ban guns, if not prohibited by their state constitution, and the state legislature and supreme court of that state are used in making in testing the law, as I said above that way the STATE is supreme, and we get the fed govt shrunk down to where it should be bottom line - [b]you want the fed govt protecting the fudgpackers? then you also give it the power to overrule states on gun. this is factually irrefutable[/b] apparently sex is more important than second amend freedoms to some of you |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:05:42 PM EDT
[#15]
You could learn to capitalize.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:05:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Um, the states are prohibited by the Constitution from infringing on the Bill of Rights just like the Federal Govt is. When they do, and if their state supreme court doesn't smack them down, then it's up to the US Supreme Court to do it for them. if that so, then why did states all pass their own bill of rights LONG before the 14th was ever passed?? the original BoR 10 amendments handcuffed the fed gov't on restricting SPECIFIC rights, then recognized the states several rights to legislate to their own satisfaction my ideal situation is where every state makes up their own laws on every issue. every issue then has FIFTY different solution. NOT ONE GREAT BIG FEDERAL ONE. if you want to play the incorporation game with teh 14th, then you also get fed gov't overruling the states on gun laws if the fed govt can say private consesual sex between adults is 100% constitutional protected, then you give the fed gov't the right to determine how "consensual" is defined. and you don't have the liberty you thought you had is a 15 year old sex with a 40 yr old consensual? you just gave the fed govt the right to determine that SHORT SIGHTED I'm fairly certain you are a really confused individual. I myself would not mind if the SCOTUS came out tomorrow and said, "Did you guys miss our decision in US vs. Miller"? (Read this after you sober up from your last posts...) [url]http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9884/bp_Miller.html[/url] Yes, I love the tenth amendment (States Rights). I also love it when the 14th is used to prevent states from taking away my right to privacy, 2nd amendment, etc. I do not agree with the lifestyle of gays, but they have a right to privacy! Just as you have a right to keep and bear arms. You have really missed the point on this post. Try to get a few facts first before posting. Will the SCOTUS rule that 40 year old men can butt boof 14 year olds? Nope. It is NOT a federal power. It is not a power specifically given to the feds. It is therefore RESERVED TO THE STATES. (Flashback to the 10th amendment...) Get clues, then post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#17]
For shame, truthsniper. Little discrete applications of truth, and so hard to read. Try some punctuation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:08:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Talk about short sighted. What effect would your little solution have on something like interstate commerce? California bans trucks that don't run on electric power. Illinois says trucks have to have a certain type of mudflap on them, and Indiana says a different type. Georgia allows semi-trucks that are 48 feet long, but Florida only allows 45 feet long. Hell, let's just all print our own currency while we're at it. It's the [b]UNITED[/b] States of America, not the "50 Individual States that Happen to Be Located on the Same Continent" please interstate commerce and coining money are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution as powers of teh Fed gov't forcing states to say hoorah to fudg packing ain't And in making sure the fdug packers are happy you shit away your gun rights NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED THAT POINT |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:08:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Amendment XIV Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; the state legislature and state supreme court both passing and ruling the anti sodomy law as constitutional according to the STATE constitution IS due frikken process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. law says every body gotta stop sodomizing how is that NOT equal protection?? and in answer to the question above, YES, an individual state SHOULD be able to COMPLETELY ban guns, if not prohibited by their state constitution, and the state legislature and supreme court of that state are used in making in testing the law, as I said above that way the STATE is supreme, and we get the fed govt shrunk down to where it should be bottom line - [b]you want the fed govt protecting the fudgpackers? then you also give it the power to overrule states on gun. this is factually irrefutable[/b] apparently sex is more important than second amend freedoms to some of you The Constitution says my "right to bear arms shall not be infringed", and that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"... WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ?????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:11:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: ...my ideal situation is where every state makes up their own laws on every issue. every issue then has FIFTY different solution. NOT ONE GREAT BIG FEDERAL ONE... Yeah... good luck with that one... ...if the fed govt can say private consesual sex between adults is 100% constitutional protected, then you give the fed gov't the right to determine how "consensual" is defined. and you don't have the liberty you thought you had... The "fed govt" said nothing of the kind. The Supreme Court of the United States of America declared that a particular state law was in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution - one of the very purposes for which the Supreme Court was established by said Constitution. Sure it's a flawed system - be sure to send us a postcard when you find a better one... edited: ...and maybe learn to read & write before bothering with said postcard... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:11:40 PM EDT
[#21]
again, let me re-state -
I do NOT want states tellin' fudgpackers they cant do that in their own homes What I am pointing out is that [b]this decision also shits away our gun rights, giving fed govt the right to overrule states[/b] It does, IT DOES' [b]IT DOES.[/b] Answer that question alone. [b]Can you live with that, all for the glorious purpose of protecting deviant sex????[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:17:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Talk about short sighted. What effect would your little solution have on something like interstate commerce? California bans trucks that don't run on electric power. Illinois says trucks have to have a certain type of mudflap on them, and Indiana says a different type. Georgia allows semi-trucks that are 48 feet long, but Florida only allows 45 feet long. Hell, let's just all print our own currency while we're at it. It's the [b]UNITED[/b] States of America, not the "50 Individual States that Happen to Be Located on the Same Continent" please interstate commerce and coining money are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution as powers of teh Fed gov't forcing states to say hoorah to fudg packing ain't And in making sure the fdug packers are happy you shit away your gun rights NO ONE HAS YET ADDRESSED THAT POINT Yes, but it's the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms - so if a state infringes on that right, thereby denying the citizens of that state their Constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S., it's the SCOTUS's responsibility to strike down the state law. Just like it's their responsibility to strike down a state law that violates the right to privacy. Don't [i]you[/i] get it? Both ways, it's the SCOTUS that gets rid of State laws infringing on Constitutional rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:18:19 PM EDT
[#23]
I would remind you that almost all of these sodomy laws includes a prohibition against oral sex between married couples. The state, any state has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:21:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: again, let me re-state - I do NOT want states tellin' fudgpackers they cant do that in their own homes What I am pointing out is that [b]this decision also shits away our gun rights, giving fed govt the right to overrule states[/b] No, it doesn't. Try reading others responses before posting more drivel. 223 Buckaroo explained it quite well ,and he even used puctuation and small words. It does, IT DOES' [b]IT DOES.[/b] Now it sounds like you are whining, and banging your fists on the ground, like a 6 year old wanting a pack of gum! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:22:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: The Constitution says my "right to bear arms shall not be infringed", and that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"... WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ?????? I want you to quote the ENTIRE Constitution. With the "..." you left off a VERY important phrase "without due process of law." You version of the Constutition prohibits the state from abridging ANY priviledge of the citizenry, which OBVIOUSLY is done EVERY SINGLE DAY. [b] Without due process of law..[/b] is what teh Constitution says. Ans when an individual state legislature passes an anti-sodomy of law, and the state courts rule it in conformity with the state Constitution, [size=6]THEN DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED[/size=6] and the 14th Amendment has been satisfied. If after that the Fed gov't comes along and strikes it down, then the fed gov't can come along and strike down a state law that says, in effect, its legal to sell NFA post 86 weapons in that state. Why don't you guys get this? Or perhaps you do, and that why yer all whining about punctuation and capitalization rather than ANSWERING THE DAMN QUESTION. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:25:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Do you take a hit off of a crackpipe before every post? Someone lock this thread before slapnutz here OD's on his own delusions.
You can go back and read the whole post, and see that nobody has a problem with fed.gov striking down unconstitutional laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:26:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: again, let me re-state - I do NOT want states tellin' fudgpackers they cant do that in their own homes What I am pointing out is that [b]this decision also shits away our gun rights, giving fed govt the right to overrule states[/b] No, it doesn't. That's weak man. You should be ashamed. here it is in words appropriate for you... If the Fed gov't can overrule a state about sex, then it can overule a state that wants to sell post 86 NFA weapons to the citizenry. Before this decision, the Second Amendment applied to states wanting to sell post 86 NFA weapons, protecting their right to do so. Now this stupid decision established legal precedence that the Fed gov't can SQUASH a states right allow sellerd to sell NFA weapons to whomever they want. And yer applauding that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:33:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Show me in in the Constitution of the United States where it says that States have Rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:34:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: again, let me re-state - I do NOT want states tellin' fudgpackers they cant do that in their own homes What I am pointing out is that [b]this decision also shits away our gun rights, giving fed govt the right to overrule states[/b] No, it doesn't. That's weak man. You should be ashamed. here it is in words appropriate for you... If the Fed gov't can overrule a state about sex, then it can overule a state that wants to sell post 86 NFA weapons to the citizenry. Before this decision, the Second Amendment applied to states wanting to sell post 86 NFA weapons, protecting their right to do so. Now this stupid decision established legal precedence that the Fed gov't can SQUASH a states right allow sellerd to sell NFA weapons to whomever they want. And yer applauding that. WTH are you talking about? The 1986 MG ban is a FEDERAL law! It doesn't have anything to do with the sale of pre 86 machine guns! You are totally confused! (I'll give you another hint: 1934 NFA) I'll be the first one to admit, individual states like the PRK and NJ have unconstitutional gun laws. Fed.gov will someday get around to tossing those right out the window. A state can pass concealed carry laws however they want them. Why? Because fed.gov was never given that power. A state CANNOT say it is illegal to not answer the question in a court of law, "Did you kill Mr. P?" Why? Because fed.gov has an amendment called the 5th amendment!!!! Why? A state cannot select which parts of the BOR it wants to honor. See the point now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:36:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Show me in in the Constitution of the United States where it says that States have Rights. Amendment X 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. [url]http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:38:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Amendment X
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. [url]http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html[/url] Read this over SLOWLY, truthshotgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:39:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Do you take a hit off of a crackpipe before every post? Someone lock this thread before slapnutz here OD's on his own delusions. Insults do NOT stengthen your arguments, weak as they already are. You can go back and read the whole post, and see that nobody has a problem with fed.gov striking down unconstitutional laws. What this decision did is eviscerate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and nullify the provisoes that (in teh Ninth Amend) enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Your application of the 14th Amendment thereby giving the Fed gov't the right to overrule a state about sex gives the Fed govt the right to overrule a state about guns - Second Amendment be damned. (and in teh Tenth Amendment) 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. The Constitution DOES NOT gove the Federal govt the enumerated power to determine what sexual behavior shall be determined legal. That is a right of the state - up until now. Now there's precedence for the Fed govt to determine that. And also precedence for the Federal gov't to determine what is legal in the sale and distribution of guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:41:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Show me in in the Constitution of the United States where it says that States have Rights. Amendment X 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. [url]http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html[/url] But a 'power' is not a 'right', even though a 'right' is a 'power'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:45:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Amendment X 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. [url]http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html[/url] Read this over SLOWLY, truthshotgun. You just made my argument for me. The US Constitution DOES NOT enumerate the power of the Fed govt to determine what sexuality is legal. If it is NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED as a power of the Fed gov't, then the Fed gov't DOES NOT have that power. THE STATE DOES. Well, up until this decision. Now the Fed gov't does. The tenth amendment puts sodomy laws SQUARELY in the jurisdicition of the states. This decision rips that right away from them. You WILL obey the Fed gov't in matters of sex. And you WILL obey the fed gov't in purchase of guns. If sodomy were SOLELY determined by states, you are pretty much guaranteed to have sodmony allowed somewhere. Imagine what happens if teh anti sodomy crowd gets in office. With the Fed gov't applying a SINGLE BROAD BRUSH SOLUTION, you have LOST freedom, not gained it. I'm right, and you know it. Sure its working out OK in the short term, in your perspective, but like I said at the beginning, that a shortsighted approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:46:11 PM EDT
[#35]
[b]truthsniper[/b]
What an apropos screen-name: Folks with intelligence & manners post the [b]truth[/b], and he [b]"snipes"[/b] it on down with more mindless drivel... edited to remove the troll head: I de-trolled this post because I just went back & read all of truthsniper's posts here. With the exception of his... who gives a hell lets eat ...response to the "How in the hell did Jimmy Carter ever get elected?" thread, his posts aren't usually like this. Grammar-wise, yes, but not in tone. This must be something about which he is very worked-up. I still think he's dead-wrong, I just don't think he's a troll. My apologies for the "name-calling." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:49:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: [b]truthsniper[/b] What an apropos screen-name: Folks with intelligence & manners post the [b]truth[/b], and he [b]"snipes"[/b] it on down with more mindless drivel... [troll] As is your screen name appropriate. Those enslaved by "Fury" seldom can discuss an issue. They tend rather to insult, emote, and lash out. Will you now allow us to go back to discussion, rather than trading sarcasm??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:52:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Sigh. How did I get pulled into this one?
I really don't have time to do internet searches right now. How about a right to privacy, illegal search and seizure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 12:59:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Your application of the 14th Amendment thereby giving the Fed gov't the right to overrule a state about sex gives the Fed govt the right to overrule a state about guns - [red]Second Amendment be damned.[/red] PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS !!! When has it EVER been decided that the SCOTUS could disregard ANY part of the Constitution ????????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:00:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: You just made my argument for me. The US Constitution DOES NOT enumerate the power of the Fed govt to determine what sexuality is legal. If it is NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED as a power of the Fed gov't, then the Fed gov't DOES NOT have that power. No, but the Federal Government, through a little document called the U.S. Constitution, guarantees a right to privacy, which the anti-sodomy law violated. It has nothing to do with sexuality being legal. It has to do with a state government infringing on the Constitutional rights of a United States citizen. What part of this relatively simple concept don't you understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:02:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Sigh. How did I get pulled into this one? Cuz you care about freedom, the Constitution, and the future of our nation? That's my best guess. I really don't have time to do internet searches right now. How about a right to privacy, illegal search and seizure? It depends on how far you want to extend those rights. Not EVERYTHING is covered by privacy. Alls I'm saying is (back on point) IF you want to give the Fed gov't the right to rule HOW a state will apply their privacy laws, you ALSO give the Fed gov't the right to rule HOW a state will apply their gun laws. Is a package deal. Can you live with that? I'll willingly sacrifice deviant behavior in order to disallow the Fed gov't the legal precedence to rule on guns, and leave BOTH matters to the several states, where there is a MUCH greater chance EVERYONE will have their best interests served, rather than a ONE JACK BOOT FITS ALL Federal solution. THAT is states rights. We ALL better start protecting them. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:02:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: As is your screen name appropriate. Those enslaved by "Fury" seldom can discuss an issue. They tend rather to insult, emote, and lash out. Will you now allow us to go back to discussion, rather than trading sarcasm??? Uh, no, my screen name is a comic book character, i.e., I don't take myself THAT seriously (and you even less so...). [brick] I wasn't insulting you - Heaven forbid! I was pointing out that, unlike EVERYONE ELSE on this thread, you don't seem to understand that you arrived unarmed for a battle of wits. [:D] And I wasn't emotional or lashing out - I already shot your entire premise out of the water in my prior post, effectively & succinctly. Your every ill-conceived & horribly executed statement & argument here has been rebuffed multiple times with thought, logic, & reason - concepts that seem slightly out of your grasp. As for rejoining the discussion - my 6-year-old nephew understands our government better than you, so what's the point? One cannot reason with those who will not LISTEN to reason. Best of luck to you, sir! (And don't forget that postcard...) edit: Oh, and [b]IBTL![/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:06:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I'll willingly sacrifice deviant behavior in order to disallow the Fed gov't the legal precedence to rule on guns, and leave BOTH matters to the several states, where there is a MUCH greater chance EVERYONE will have their best interests served, rather than a ONE JACK BOOT FITS ALL Federal solution. Right, like in California. Or New Jersey. Folks that live in those states are sure getting their best interests served, especially on gun rights. Their best chance to get those rights back is the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:11:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: [PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS !!! When has it EVER been decided that the SCOTUS could disregard ANY part of the Constitution ????????? To my knowledge - NEVER. But that's irrelevant. The REAL problem has ALWAYS been SCOTUS going WAAAAYY beyond what the Constitution intended and giving the Fed gov't powers NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in CONTUS. Determining sexual norms is NOT an enumerated power. And the Tenth Amend makes it a STATE power, and a power of the PEOPLE. SCOTUS has given the Fed gov't the right to SMASH STATES RIGHTS and restrict sales of NFA weapons by the several states. Now SCOTUS has FORCED everyone to recognize deviant sexual behaviour as normal. AGAIN smashing the individual states, and in reality individual communities rights. What you need to do is show WHERE the US COnstitution grants the Fed gov't the ENUMERATED POWER to determine sodomy is legal. Cuz if it can decide that, it can decide it ain't legal. Then it can decide hetero threesome ain't legal. Then it can determine unmarried sex illegal. Then it can decide sex is illegal. And you all applauded its origin - in this SCOTUS decision. You pizzed away your freedom in a short sighted moment. My apologies for being the one to bring it to your attention. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:12:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: THAT is states rights. We ALL better start protecting them. States have [b]NO RIGHTS[/b]. They have [b]Powers[/b]. Every [b]Power[/b] of government (at ANY level) is delegated by the people to it, government (at ANY level) has no 'rights'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:17:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Right, like in California. Or New Jersey. Folks that live in those states are sure getting their best interests served, especially on gun rights. Their best chance to get those rights back is the Supreme Court. ANd that is true BECAUSE of the Second Amendment. There is NO Second Amendment for sodomites. But think here for a minute...Kali and New Jerksey folks ain't doin' so hot getting their rights back are they??? So, is it better to have FIFTY states all determining the gun (and sodomy) laws, or a SINGLE JACK BOOTEDD gov't telling teh whole nation how its gonna be??? Is ONE solution, or 50 solutions better? At least my way, people can MOVE to another state.(the way teh FF intended) With the Fed gov't calling ALL the shots (no pun intended) on guns or boinking, you can't move. Yer stuck. So as you can see, we LOST freedom with this ruling. And I REFUSE to applaud that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:22:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: So as you can see, we LOST freedom with this ruling. And I REFUSE to applaud that. Who is "we" and specifically what freedom have "we" lost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:25:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: THAT is states rights. We ALL better start protecting them. States have [b]NO RIGHTS[/b]. They have [b]Powers[/b]. I know what you are saying, but you'll have to take it up with the authors of the Federalist Papers. Its all relative. Relative to the Fed gov't, the states have rights. Relative to the states and Fed gov't , the people have rights. Relative to the people, states and the Fed gov't have powers delegated to them by the people. And when the people deem necessary, they have the right to dissolve state and Federal gov'ts. The people reign supreme, and the states and Fed rule under the "consent of the governed." "States rights" is just a handy term, as I beleive used in the Federalist Ppaers, to denote the relationship between the Fed gov't and the several states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:31:19 PM EDT
[#48]
This reminds me alot of good old albert isham's claim that there is a "right to regulate" whatever the mob decides.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 1:50:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: [PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS !!! When has it EVER been decided that the SCOTUS could disregard ANY part of the Constitution ????????? To my knowledge - NEVER. But that's irrelevant. The REAL problem has ALWAYS been SCOTUS going WAAAAYY beyond what the Constitution intended and giving the Fed gov't powers NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in CONTUS. [red]Determining sexual norms is NOT an enumerated power.[/red] And the Tenth Amend makes it a STATE power, and a power of the PEOPLE. SCOTUS has given the Fed gov't the right to SMASH STATES RIGHTS and restrict sales of NFA weapons by the several states. Now SCOTUS has FORCED everyone to recognize deviant sexual behaviour as normal. AGAIN smashing the individual states, and in reality individual communities rights. What you need to do is show WHERE the US COnstitution grants the Fed gov't the ENUMERATED POWER to determine sodomy is legal. Cuz if it can decide that, it can decide it ain't legal. Then it can decide hetero threesome ain't legal. Then it can determine unmarried sex illegal. Then it can decide sex is illegal. And you all applauded its origin - in this SCOTUS decision. You pizzed away your freedom in a short sighted moment. My apologies for being the one to bring it to your attention. [:D] Here's the point (please try and keep up): The SCOTUS didn't rule on what is or isn't a "sexual norm". It ruled that the state has no power to make this law. That's it. People have a right to privacy in their own homes, and the Government, either Federal or State, can't change that. Period. This is a major victory for PERSONAL rights , because it blocks State and Federal encroachments on those rights. Edited to say- AND this is EXACTLY how it was intended to be. The Constitution does not grant the government power: it serves to RESTRICT Government power. And the SCOTUS interpreted it that way with this ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2003 5:17:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Who is "we" and specifically what freedom have "we" lost? Apparently, Imbry has been napping at the back of the class. But since this is the crux of the issue, it bears repeating: 1. OBVIOUSLY 50 states (think:legislatures, courts, and governors)lost the right to determine their OWN definitions of privacy, and how it would be applied in their state. 2, EVERY SINGLE municipality lost the right to self-determination of what privacy means, and are FORCED to accept sodomy as the norm, in addition. 3. EVERY SINGLE citizen lost the right to participate in the legislative process in THEIR HOME STATE and community to determine how they will apply privacy laws, and what sexual norms will be allowed in their community. All for the high noble purpose of having the Federal jack boot rammed down their throat. ANd beyond that, we ALL lost the upper hand in telling the Fed gov't they WILL NOT exercise powers they DO NOT Constiutionally have - and this most defginitely applies to the gun issue. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
