liberals hate first amendment

[Good Luck]

Wrong again, genius. READ the damned article...it backs what I say. That you don't like it is TFB.

You really need to go back to 3rd grade and take up reading for comprehension.

Tell me, how is a student supposed to fill out a form requiring the names of ten members when she hasn't got the word out yet to attract 10 members? Your objection (and that of the college) that she did not fill out the proper forms is a load of crap. BOTH the student AND the college acknowledge one fact that you do not: the student was in the process of STARTING her chapter of SCCC.

The issue is the college took exception to the students' methods of gaining initial (ie: startup) interest in the SCCC chapter. But just as you support screwing the 22nd Amendment, you also support screwing the 1st Amendment by supporting a rule structure which requires prior permission to exercise the right of free assembly.

As I said, that is the way of totalitarians and those who support them. Rights that do not meet your approval in intent and method are to be quashed.

 

[Whomever]

The damned army stomped all over my first ammendment rights when I told an officer he was a jerk.
My point being if you join a college you go by their rules. PERIOD!

btw the officer truely was a jerk, and I even used sir in the statement.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The damned army stomped all over my first ammendment rights when I told an officer he was a jerk.
My point being if you join a college you go by their rules. PERIOD!

This is not one of your dreaded sporting events.

 

[Whomever]

This is not one of your dreaded sporting events.

What?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The damned army stomped all over my first ammendment rights when I told an officer he was a jerk.
My point being if you join a college you go by their rules. PERIOD!

btw the officer truely was a jerk, and I even used sir in the statement.

silly you. did you really think you had a first amendment right to call a higher ranking officer a 'jerk'?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

silly you. did you really think you had a first amendment right to call a higher ranking officer a 'jerk'?

He had the right and the Officer had the right to assign him to KP.

LOL

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually he didn't have the right to call the officer a jerk.

 

[Good Luck]

The damned army stomped all over my first ammendment rights when I told an officer he was a jerk.
My point being if you join a college you go by their rules. PERIOD!

btw the officer truely was a jerk, and I even used sir in the statement.

Did no one explain to you that you are not protected under the Constitution, but rather the UCMJ when in uniform? Disrespect of a superior is NOT a protected right under freedom of speech in any case. Call your boss a jerk to his face and see if you can sue to get your job back - it will not work.

Your point is a load of shit, anyway. If a rule is wrong, then it is wrong. People who advocate blindly following rules are mindless sheep.

 

[Whomever]

silly you. did you really think you had a first amendment right to call a higher ranking officer a 'jerk'?

Sure it is an inaleinable right.



Anyway you guys have proved my point. When you join a college you agree to go by their rules.
And yes the military had lots of stupid rules, but you quickly learn to be a sheeple and follow them.

 

[Good Luck]

Sure it is an inaleinable right.



Anyway you guys have proved my point. When you join a college you agree to go by their rules.
And yes the military had lots of stupid rules, but you quickly learn to be a sheeple and follow them.

Unlike the military, becoming a student at a college does not place you under a different set of laws. When you take your oath as a soldier, you remove yourself from constitutional protections and place yourself under the UCMJ instead. You do not do that when entering a college. No one takes a binding oath when entering college.

And let's not mention that the Constitution overrides College rules (unless they are a private college, which this is not). The Constitution does not override the UCMJ.

 

[Whomever]

Unlike the military, becoming a student at a college does not place you under a different set of laws. When you take your oath as a soldier, you remove yourself from constitutional protections and place yourself under the UCMJ instead. You do not do that when entering a college. No one takes a binding oath when entering college.

And let's not mention that the Constitution overrides College rules (unless they are a private college, which this is not). The Constitution does not override the UCMJ.

Where does it say that in the constitution?
I thought it said that no other laws could superceed the constitution?

 

[Good Luck]

Where does it say that in the constitution?
I thought it said that no other laws could superceed the constitution?

Amendment 5 excepts service people from the need for civilian indictment procedures. That exception places us under military law with respect to criminal matters, which is the UCMJ (which was finally codified in 1951, being a loose aggregate of regulations and laws prior the the UCMJ.)

UCMJ says that you do not have the right to disrespect a superior, verbally or otherwise. The defense of that code in face of the 1st Amendment is that military chain of command could too easily be significantly impaired without such prohibitions. No rights of an individual is so absolute as to allow harm to other individuals or organizations.

 

[WinterBorn]

Probably all of them. But situations like Virginia Tech are the exception, not the rule.

In 2004, there were 29,569 gun deaths and 64,389 gun injuries in the U.S.

Cho killed 32 students. It's clear that people like Cho aren't responsible for all the gun violence in the country.

Only when you can show how many of the gun injuries and deaths were caused by legal gun owners will those numbers have any real meaning.

Until then they can prove your point or mine.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Good Luck
Right. The dictionary, picture perfect example of the totalitarian excuse for limiting liberty. "You have no guarantee no one will abuse their liberties, so we'll just take them from you." Did I say that, jackass? Nope! But in typical neocon fashion, you just LIE about what about what others say in order to support your failed ideology. You're a joke. You are the poster boy for the modern totalitarian state. No wonder you cannot comprehend the actions of a free person. Funny how a free state is allowing jackasses like you do to whatever the hell they want, and everyone else can take a flying leap. Sorry jackass, that's NOT how a democracy works. Maybe you should actual understand what a true totalitarian state is before your fingers hit the keys....make you look less foolish.

That is in addition to being a pathetic narcissistic twit. Awww, the widdle neocon numbskull is all upset because he can't BS his way through a debate.[/QUOTE]

You support prohibiting carrying firearms on campus. Correct. Your reason is that some students may abuse that right. Not quite. I pointed out that folk like YOU totally disregard the instances of student on student violence and general emotional developmental turmoil and somehow wager that the student with the CCWP is above all this or not complicit. that the I just put your totalitarian views into clear language. First off, you have to logically/factually prove that anything I wrote fits the definition of "totalitariansim" beyond your opinion. To date, you haven't...and repeating the accusation is not proof in and of itself. You approve with the suspension of a constitutionally guaranteed right Wrong....there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the right to carry a gun on the campus of a state/private educational institution. When you can quote the EXACT law or amendment that says this in no-uncertain-terms, you have a case. To date, you just present your supposition. on the basis that some may abuse that right. See previous response on this point. You support the philosophy Not philosphy...FACT, as I supported with a link to a source item(s) that you ignore. that if there is no way to guarantee a right will not be abused by some, then it is OK to take away that right. Again, there is no "right" in this particular situation...despite what your gun-lobby/neocon site article suggests. See my above response to this. Just because you do not like when your hypocritical bull shit political philosophy is put in plain and clear language does not make it a lie. Yours is the opinion of totalitarians. It is that simple. YOU'RE simple if you think that constantly repeating your nonsense while ignoring all contrary facts validates anything you say. The recorded post prove me out, and does not bode well for you.

I also read, listen to, and argue/debate with modern liberal crap on a daily basis. Oh yeah, and you do so with such objectivity...as you display in this sentence and following diatribe. What's really hysterical is how you have demonstrated a willingness NOT to read what I've source, yet you blather on in blissful ignorance as if you know all. It is the way our society works. (Which is a REPUBLIC you lying ignorant sack of shit - not a democracy) And with that declaration....you just want to throw out the democratic process on which we operate.....how fascist of you. The 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to voice your opinion in any manner you wish, so long as your methods and purpose are not to bring about deliberate or foreseeable harm to others. And as you continually refuse to acknowledge, your little NRA darling dupe was NOT just discussing issues with other students...she was handing out flyers that circumnavigated the OFFICIAL process and represented herself in a fashion that belied the truth that SHE HAD NO OFFICIAL CONTACT/SUPPORT from a national organization prior to her whining to your website that printed the article. She lied...and I proved such USING YOUR SOURCE MATERIAL. While I think your opinions are totalitarian shit, I fully acknowledge and defend (spent 40 years doing so) your right to continue to spew your brain dead philosophy. In 40 years you have learned NOTHING....you're still a willfully ignorant right winged NRA dupe.....you don't even know what the hell a true totalitarian gov't is, and you can't prove I advocate such logically or factually. You're pathetic.

However, the Constitution also says we have the right to keep and bear arms, In order to maintain a militia and that right is not to be infringed. Preventing a person from bearing an arm in specified locations, regardless of your misguided ignorant intent, is infringing on a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Wrong.....this NRA bullshit on a college campus has NOTHING TO DO with state militias or the STATES rights to regulate gun laws. Again, there is NOTHING in the Constitution regarding state/private educational institutions and how they form rules for security, etc. You can't make that dog fly, bunky....no matter how many times you repeat it. The Bill of Rights, which was specifically written to protect our society from government taking and enforcing your "if they cannot guarantee they won't abuse it, we have the authority to take it away", forbids interfering with the right to bear arms, same as it is forbidden to interfere with your right to spout mindless drivel.

The Bill of Rights does NOT deal with college campus administration right to secure the safety of it's students as it sees fit regarding rules/regulations. No one was stopping the little gun dupe from discussing the issue with her friends, or bringing up the issue at student gov't meetings, etc. She was soliciting as if her "chapter" was actually making an effort to be legit.....as YOUR source showed, she didn't bother to get the official form that would have made this whole issue moot. And she was falsely representing herself....hell, just because she says so doesn't make it so. You can repeat all this bullshit until doomsday, but the FACTS just don't jibe with what you and your gun nut site want to believe. Now you can waste time and space repeating yourself....if you've got anything new or of worth to respond (or you try to lie about what I write), I'll respond. If not, I'm done with you here.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You really need to go back to 3rd grade and take up reading for comprehension.

Tell me, how is a student supposed to fill out a form requiring the names of ten members when she hasn't got the word out yet to attract 10 members? Your objection (and that of the college) that she did not fill out the proper forms is a load of crap. BOTH the student AND the college acknowledge one fact that you do not: the student was in the process of STARTING her chapter of SCCC.You're not too bright, are you? If little Miss NRA took the time to make up flyers and walk around handing them out....then what is the horrendous challenge for her to pick up the OFFICIAL form I sourced from administration and walk around with that and talk to students? God, you're so dense it almost defies description.

The issue is the college took exception to the students' methods of gaining initial (ie: startup) interest in the SCCC chapter. Yeah, they were false and illegal according to the College rules. But just as you support screwing the 22nd Amendment, you also support screwing the 1st Amendment by supporting a rule structure which requires prior permission to exercise the right of free assembly. Sorry genius, but you saying so doesn't make it true......there is NO law in the Constitution that directly pertains to state/private educational institutions formenting rules and regulations regarding student conduct & safety. And as your sources show, Miss NRA was ignoring the rules. End of story.

As I said, that is the way of totalitarians and those who support them. Rights that do not meet your approval in intent and method are to be quashed.

Once more time for the mentally challenged: learn the definition of totalitarianism, and then demonstrate how anything I've written fits that definition (NOT YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, BUT LEGAL, OFFICIAL DEFINITIONS AS RECOGNIZED BY WORLD GOV'T AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS). If you can't prove it, then you'll be lying everytime you make the accusation.

 

[Good Luck]

It's simple, twinky. When you support the random abrogation of personal liberties by any authority, you are supporting the tenets of totalitarian authority. Of course totalitarians hate being called that. But tough shit. When it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, I don't think of pigeons.

Totalitarian: advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
Totalitarianism: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

there is NO law in the Constitution that directly pertains to state/private educational institutions formenting rules and regulations regarding student conduct & safety

Just shows how completely, totally (deliberately?) ignorant of Constitutional law you are. But since you think there are no constitutional restrictions on public colleges (forget the "or private" addition you made you fucking liar - it has been pointed out multiple times CCAC is public) then I am certain you would have nothing to say if a college dean decided student conduct should include 5 minutes of Christian prayer before every class.

But, no, we all know what your reaction to THAt would be, don't we? Just as your constant referring to the young lady as "miss NRA" shows the only REAL problem you have with this issue is she is advocating for 2nd Amendment rights, which all totalitarians deplore. And we all also know where your stance would be if a student ignored campus policy in order to garner support for a gay rights group, don't we?


As for 2nd Amendment rights, you are, as usualy, spouting pure unadulterated totalitarian lies. Care to read what the WRITERS of the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) have to say about what they intended the 2nd Amendmetn for? Probably not, but I'll post their quotes anyway, just to piss you off.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty– so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator–and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

(Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for the Virginia Constitution)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America"

- (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

(Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Papers pp334)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

(Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

(Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)(this one is strong proof the founders intended the citizenry to have access to the same weapons as soldiers have. If the soldiers' weapons change, so do those of the citizenry.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

(Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."

(Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) (another strong indicator that the arms of a common soldier should also be available to the citizenry.)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

(Richard Henry Lee, 1788)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."

(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

(Patrick Henry)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"

(George Washington) (one of my favorites!)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, 1788)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. Thus, there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."

(John Trenchard paraphrasing Aristotle)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

(Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

(Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government"

(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28)

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

(Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796)

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"

(Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824)


I’ve issued this challenge before, but will extend it specifically to you: If you can find just 1 quote for every 5 I have posted above, from the people who lived and debated the Bill of Rights, or were even alive at that time, that contradicts the above quotes, I will concede that the 2nd Amendment is what you blind big mommy government liberals say it is. But they have to be from the time of the B.O.R. Quoting some other liberal idiot who lived 100 years or more later does not count.

Are you up to it? Bet you’re not.

 

[christiefan915]

It's simple, twinky. When you support the random abrogation of personal liberties by any authority, you are supporting the tenets of totalitarian authority. Of course totalitarians hate being called that. But tough shit. When it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, I don't think of pigeons.

Totalitarian: advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
Totalitarianism: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority



Just shows how completely, totally (deliberately?) ignorant of Constitutional law you are. But since you think there are no constitutional restrictions on public colleges (forget the "or private" addition you made you fucking liar - it has been pointed out multiple times CCAC is public) then I am certain you would have nothing to say if a college dean decided student conduct should include 5 minutes of Christian prayer before every class.

But, no, we all know what your reaction to THAt would be, don't we? Just as your constant referring to the young lady as "miss NRA" shows the only REAL problem you have with this issue is she is advocating for 2nd Amendment rights, which all totalitarians deplore. And we all also know where your stance would be if a student ignored campus policy in order to garner support for a gay rights group, don't we?


As for 2nd Amendment rights, you are, as usualy, spouting pure unadulterated totalitarian lies. Care to read what the WRITERS of the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) have to say about what they intended the 2nd Amendmetn for? Probably not, but I'll post their quotes anyway, just to piss you off.

(Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for the Virginia Constitution)

- (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

(Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Papers pp334)

(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

(Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

(Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)(this one is strong proof the founders intended the citizenry to have access to the same weapons as soldiers have. If the soldiers' weapons change, so do those of the citizenry.)

(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

(Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

(Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) (another strong indicator that the arms of a common soldier should also be available to the citizenry.)

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

(Richard Henry Lee, 1788)

(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

(Patrick Henry)

(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787)

-- (Thomas Jefferson)

(George Washington) (one of my favorites!)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, 1788)

(John Trenchard paraphrasing Aristotle)

(Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

(Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)

(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28)

(Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796)

(Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824)

I’ve issued this challenge before, but will extend it specifically to you: If you can find just 1 quote for every 5 I have posted above, from the people who lived and debated the Bill of Rights, or were even alive at that time, that contradicts the above quotes, I will concede that the 2nd Amendment is what you blind big mommy government liberals say it is. But they have to be from the time of the B.O.R. Quoting some other liberal idiot who lived 100 years or more later does not count.

Are you up to it? Bet you’re not.

Quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

Well, there ya go. Woman aren't capable of bearing arms.

 

[Good Luck]

Quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

Well, there ya go. Woman aren't capable of bearing arms.

LOL Good one.

But the word "people" was used first, indicating the word "men" is intended as a genderless reference using a language that does not have many gender neutral terms for people. And who wants to use "people" twice in the same sentence?

Sad thing how English has always been deficient in having gender neutral nouns and especially pronouns.

 

[Minister of Truth]

LOL Good one.

But the word "people" was used first, indicating the word "men" is intended as a genderless reference using a language that does not have many gender neutral terms for people. And who wants to use "people" twice in the same sentence?

Sad thing how English has always been deficient in having gender neutral nouns and especially pronouns.

As opposed to Romantic languages where every single word is either masculine or feminine. We would probably be better off from the standpoint of liberty and constitutionalism if we did speak a Romantic language, and people were accustomed to the use of masculine and feminine words on both men and women.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's simple, twinky. When you support the random abrogation of personal liberties by any authority, you are supporting the tenets of totalitarian authority. Of course totalitarians hate being called that. But tough shit. When it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, I don't think of pigeons.

Totalitarian: advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
Totalitarianism: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority



Just shows how completely, totally (deliberately?) ignorant of Constitutional law you are. But since you think there are no constitutional restrictions on public colleges (forget the "or private" addition you made you fucking liar - it has been pointed out multiple times CCAC is public) then I am certain you would have nothing to say if a college dean decided student conduct should include 5 minutes of Christian prayer before every class.

But, no, we all know what your reaction to THAt would be, don't we? Just as your constant referring to the young lady as "miss NRA" shows the only REAL problem you have with this issue is she is advocating for 2nd Amendment rights, which all totalitarians deplore. And we all also know where your stance would be if a student ignored campus policy in order to garner support for a gay rights group, don't we?


As for 2nd Amendment rights, you are, as usualy, spouting pure unadulterated totalitarian lies. Care to read what the WRITERS of the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) have to say about what they intended the 2nd Amendmetn for? Probably not, but I'll post their quotes anyway, just to piss you off.

(Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for the Virginia Constitution)

- (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

(Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Papers pp334)

(Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

(Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

(Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)(this one is strong proof the founders intended the citizenry to have access to the same weapons as soldiers have. If the soldiers' weapons change, so do those of the citizenry.)

(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

(Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

(Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) (another strong indicator that the arms of a common soldier should also be available to the citizenry.)

(George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

(Richard Henry Lee, 1788)

(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

(Patrick Henry)

(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787)

-- (Thomas Jefferson)

(George Washington) (one of my favorites!)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, 1788)

(John Trenchard paraphrasing Aristotle)

(Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

(Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)

(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28)

(Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796)

(Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824)


I’ve issued this challenge before, but will extend it specifically to you: If you can find just 1 quote for every 5 I have posted above, from the people who lived and debated the Bill of Rights, or were even alive at that time, that contradicts the above quotes, I will concede that the 2nd Amendment is what you blind big mommy government liberals say it is. But they have to be from the time of the B.O.R. Quoting some other liberal idiot who lived 100 years or more later does not count.

Are you up to it? Bet you’re not.

And where is the quote from the Constitution, it's amendments or Bill of Rights that directly refers to a private or state institution of learnings ability to determine rules and regulations regarding student conduct and security? All you've done is give us more of your lies ( I stated private AND state to cover all the basis, jackass. I never claimed the college in question wasn't a state institution), supposition and conjecture. Nowhere in your slew of quotations is there anything that answers my simple question. Also, since your little NRA darling has NOT been established as a CCWP for her state or a member of a militia, the whole question is academic and her little stunt suspect. Now, pay attention:

Totalitarianism: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

Now according to you and the other NRA dupes, if the State issues a CCWP to someone, then EVERYONE in a State institution of learning is subject to the abolute authority of the state to have them cohabit with gun carrying students. Hmmm, pretty "totalitarian" wouldn't you say. But since we DO NOT live under a totalitarian gov't, each state has the right to set rules regarding it's institutions of learning, which allows the institutions to set their individual rules regarding security and conduct of students IN ACCORDANCE TO PERTAINING STATE LAWS. Case in point: no alcohol in accordance to state drinking age laws. Yet Grad students, who are over 21 and can drink anywhere in the state, CANNOT drink on campus grounds according to campus rules. That is the license the campus administration has with State approval. So all the NRA gun loving bullshit is just that....bullshit. Students do NOT have the right to carry guns on campus.

Next time, don't waste so much time and effort trying to baffle me with a mountain of quotes, opinions and supposition. If you can't answer a simple question, just be an adult and concede the point.