Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Well, since no one said or alluded to anything of the sort, and you obviously can't comprehend what you read...I'd say hysterics is an apt cover for your ignorant statement
. Laugh, clown, laugh.
liberals hate first amendment
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Well, since no one said or alluded to anything of the sort, and you obviously can't comprehend what you read...I'd say hysterics is an apt cover for your ignorant statement
. Laugh, clown, laugh.USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Well, since no one said or alluded to anything of the sort, and you obviously can't comprehend what you read...I'd say hysterics is an apt cover for your ignorant statement
Kind of blows your "theory" all to hell, doesn't it.
You've been weighed and measured and found wanting.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I'm firmly convinced that you're clueless about more than just the constitution. utterly clueless.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, that and a metro card will get you on the bus. My statement stands, and you can continue to blow smoke.
Socrtease
Verified User
actually I am completely aware of them and telling her she could not form the group does not meet the time place and manner requirements of the 1st amendment. Second, if ANY other group was allowed to pass out fliers but she wasn't then the ONLY conclusion to reach is that they forbid her from doing so because of the content of her fliers, which is a violation of the 1st amendment. Plain and simple this university wanted nothing to do with the discussion but knew that she would get some exposure so they forbade her from doing ANYTHING that allows her to form the group. Simple violation of the 1st amendment. I hope she sues because I am certain she will win.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Just remember that "shall not be infringed" means the same thing today that it did in 1791. The fact that we are willfully illiterate does not change the facts, as appeal to ignorance is a common logical fallacy.
Good Luck
New member
Why is it totalitarian liberals think because SCOTUS says a municipality can require permits and limit location for demonstrations above a certain size, that means suddenly "limits" can mean any fascist process they want to put it place?
1) The limits a municipality can place on assembly is, itself, limited. For instance, if 5 people want to stand on a corner - or anywhere else considered public property with signs, the municipality has nothing to say. It's only when the anticipated attendance reaches a certain level (different for each municipality) that permits must be obtained.
2) NO limitations allowed municipalities include interfering with or limiting the ability of persons to organize an assembly of any kind. This is what the college is doing. Between their BS rules, and their actions taken directly against the young lady, such as vague threats using the term "academic misconduct", they are deliberately hindering her ability to organize.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this was the entire intent of FDRs court packing scheme threat. they needed to change the outlook of the constitution so that it no longer limits and restricts them and they apparently succeeded. Now, most non-thinking people have accepted that they can only do what the law says they can do, and the courts have complied.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
We've done this dance, toodles....all you've got is repetition of disproven points with regards to the original point of discussion. In effect, you're just
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, you are only aware of her side of the story....remember, the pro-gun site article only has her word as to what transpired at the closed door meeting. Also, remember that she was representing herself as the would be leader of a student group that was in touch/affiliated with a national organization (which was untrue at the time) for which she was soliciting for. Add to this that she DID NOT use the OFFICIAL form to garner signatures to submit to the administration for registration, and that the organization she was trying to start was to directly challenge college security/conduct laws, and you essentially have a kid bucking the rules with an agenda, and then crying wolf when she's called on it. Add to this the hype by a pro-gun NRA type organization, and you get a lop sided story rift with reasonable doubt to the credibility of the protaganist. I hope she does sue, because when the facts are laid out in chronological order, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This is not a rebuttal of any kind.We've done this dance, toodles....all you've got is repetition of disproven points with regards to the original point of discussion. In effect, you're just
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I think it's very telling of your idiocy that you're trying to explain to a lawyer how that student has no leg to stand on.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Here are two examples of how the 2nd Amendment was written. Note the differences in punctuation and capitalization. Now why do you suppose the phrase with "militia" was even included if the intent of the framers was that all people were entitled to bear arms?
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.
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.
Why not say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", eliminating any reference to militias. That would be straightforward and not subject to misinterpretation.
If it's an individual right, why the redundant language?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
to state the reason why the right shall not be infringed. Because the people operating as a well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free state. It's telling the government that we the people are the sovereign power and for that reason alone, the arms of the people shall not be kept from them.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I think it's very telling of your idiocy that you're trying to explain to a lawyer how that student has no leg to stand on.
Ahh, the neocon clown with delusions of intellectualism strikes again! Newsflash for you, mastermind....anyone can file a law suit. Whether it actually gets to trial is a whole other smoke.....so the details are up to discussion. I wasn't explaining the law, I was discussing the circumstances. If you learned how to read carefully and comprehensively, you'd know that. And since lawyers are more than capable of answering for themselves, opinions from clowns like you aren't worth a piss in the wind. But do continue to follow me around and throw rocks.....seems about all you little neocon numbskulls can do.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
seems you've got all the little liberal key words down pat, but you missed a very important item and that is that I'm not a 'neocon'. If you'd bother to read accurately, you'd know this.
Good Luck
New member
Do you remember how to diagram a compound sentence?
There are two indicators that the right belongs to the people. First and foremost, the writers state it is the right of the people. Look at the independent clause: "The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. NO WHERE do the founders EVER use the term "THE PEOPLE" with any other meaning than the rights of individual citizens.
The right of "the people" to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. Is that a collective right to be properly regulated by the states?
Amendment 4 states "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons.... Again, the term is used, and it means each and every individual citizen.
Amendment 9, which secures rights which are not enumerated, again uses the term "the people", as does the 10th which states unenumerated powers are reserved from the federal government.
In ALL the above uses of the term "THE PEOPLE" there is no doubt that the writers meant specifically the rights of individuals. There is no reason (other than fear or desire to control) to assume the term "the people" in the 2nd Amendment means something different.
Remember, the founders were very careful in their selection of wording. Had they meant the right to be limited to "official" militia members, they would have stated so, with an independent phrase something like: "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms....". But they used the term "THE PEOPLE" because it was their intent that the FINAL authority - that of arms - remain in the hands of the people.
Second, the clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, is not meant to modify the term "the people". A reasonable examination of how the sentence is structured shows this clearly. We have the independent clause "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It can stand alone, indicating it is the center point of the sentence. The dependent clause simply states the REASON for the idea contained in the independent clause. THE PEOPLE shall retain the right because THE PEOPLE are the best defense of a free state against ALL who would usurp freedoms, INCLUDING domestic threats to liberty.
Look at the way the writers defined militia:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
""Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?...."
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
The state national guards are, in actuality, only under limited control of the individual states. They can be activated in very limited ways to meet a limited variety of emergencies. Otherwise, the national guard is under federal control under federal regulations, are mostly funded by federal dollars, and are subject to the same UCMJ that federal troops are. By the definitions of the 1780's, the state national guards are STANDING ARMIES, and not militia.
Read the quotes I posted earlier in this thread. They CLEARLY indicate that they were intent on the people being armed - and not just for hunting or personal self defense - but rather to allow the people the ability, if necessary, to defend their liberties directly; because they knew first hand what can happen when a government limits liberty for it's own purposes.
We may not need the ability to violently resist and/or overthrow TODAY, against the current government (though there are some who would disagree with that....) However, no one, not me, not you, not President Obama, not all the congress critters or federal justices, state governors, generals or soldiers can guarantee that we will not need that ability 50, 100, 200 years from now. But if we forego the right guaranteed us because we do not "need" it today, you can guarandamntee the right will not be returned to us when we DO need it.
Final note on the concept of deterrence. The fact that we have the right to arms, in itself, diminishes the chances we will ever need to actually use it in any way other than hunting or self defense. The more the right is limited, the greater the chances we will, someday, need the unfettered right that was intended.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I could care less what you call yourself, toodles. You parrot the exact same convoluted BS that can be found on any ultra-conservative or neocon blog site regarding the subjects we've debated. And when you get defeated in a debate, you turn into a pissy little kid running behind me and throwing rocks. Keep it up.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I could care less what you call yourself, toodles. You parrot the exact same convoluted BS that can be found on any ultra-conservative or neocon blog site regarding the subjects we've debated. And when you get defeated in a debate, you turn into a pissy little kid running behind me and throwing rocks. Keep it up.
yeah, thats what I do, moron.
you remind me of this little british dweeb chick on democraticunderground. She had a very good talent of stating a totally screwed up position or idea and then when called on it and shown how idiotically wrong it was, deflects the issue by throwing out something totally unrelated. You're not nearly as good at it though. I doubt very much you could defeat my stepdaughter who has rocks in her head.