Freedom Of The press online?

CaptBillyTheKid said:
Ah so it's exaggeration and sarcasm? Or is my understanding fucked?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if I tell you more I will have to shoot you and, having lived my life as a non American and consequently without the dubious pleasure of owning a gun, I might miss and injure myself.
I'll leave you with that and your 'body art' and retire, gracefully, to my bed.
 
Lowaicue said:
We certainly are not following you into the darkness beneath our beds in case a terrorist/communist/gangster/hoodlum/mexican/street gang member should happen by and decide to break down the door and murder everyone.
People tend to talk about those things that concern them. How many times have you known a Brit bring up the subject of freedom? Unless, of course, he is taking the piss out of you ... and you don't recognise that, do you?
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you babbling on about? You make no sense.
 
Lowaicue said:
I'm sorry, but if I tell you more I will have to shoot you and, having lived my life as a non American and consequently without the dubious pleasure of owning a gun, I might miss and injure myself.
I'll leave you with that and your 'body art' and retire, gracefully, to my bed.
Click to expand...

Even with NO past firearms experience, I doubt you would hurt yourself unless you're absolutely retarded.
 
Lowaicue said:
Well thats happens after a lazy day in the sun, a pleasant glass or two of vino and a nice dinner. Plumtiousness.(sp)

You are for complete freedom of speech? Then why do you complain when exposed to that which may be designed to subdue you. Does the subduer have the right?

Re your last point, I really wouldn't know. Was that a film? If it was I haven't seen it. Ice skating? We have a few ice rinks.
Click to expand...

Yes. Im for complete freedom of speech.

I don't complain when exposed to that which is designed to subdue me.

I would prefer it if elitist assjackers like yourself would speak more freely about themselves and their idiotic ideas.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Well we would need Low's permission obviously, but he can always come out here, borrow one of my guns, I'll video tape the whole thing.
Click to expand...

One condition though.
He has to actually fire it at a target.
He just can't hold in the air and pull the trigger.
OH and no coaching.
 
Socrtease said:
Freedom of expression covers what we do here. However, I don't know that the framers could have ever foreseen this medium let alone Television and Radio but I am sure they would have said the first amendment applies. But even if they didn't think that it applied directly, I am certain they would think the 9th covered what we do here. This is where you conservatives fall short in my opinion. The 9th was intended as a catch all because the framers didn't want freedoms limited by people saying, "There is no explicit amendment covering that right". I believe that if you told the framers there was no right to keep our private lives from the government they would laugh in your face. The Bill of Rights was intended to cover those rights that the British has been notoriously denying. But the 9th was included as a catch all and the Bill of rights would have NEVER been ratified without it.
Click to expand...

The 9th Amendment is a catch-all only as far as the Federal government is concerned. If it were intended to apply to the states, how could we determine what isn't a right? According to your interpretation, we can do whatever the fuck we want and no level of government can stop it. That makes no sense at all.

Here are James Madison's remarks about what would become the 9th Amendment:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

The 9th is a restraint on the Federal government, not the states. Of course, that's pretty clear just by the wording of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top