liberals hate first amendment

[Taichiliberal]

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.

Nice, but it's wasted on neocon's pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Nice, but it's wasted on neocon's pseudo-intellectualism.

She made a joke about feminism. Thanks for getting it.

The whole point here is that you do not understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it.

 

[Don Quixote]

when it concerns topics they hate.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10645.html



anybody see this coming on a wider scale in the near future? I do.

colleges seems to run by their own rules

as a social progressive, i take exception to your comment as i too would like to see more people properly trained in weapon handling and the law with regard to carrying concealed weapons

my only question is can that college prohibit carrying a legal concealed weapon on campus - i do now know the laws of that jurisdiction... do you?

 

[Good Luck]

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.

Concede what point? Can you or can you not refute that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights intended the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right for the purpose of self defense and defense of liberty, and NOT, as you falsely claim, meant only for militia?

As for the right being incorporated to the states, that is through the 14th Amendment, which INCLUDES all state authorities, such as state sponsored colleges. That principle has been upheld in multiple court cases. As I indirectly pointed out (but obviously went right over your pointy little head) the principle that public education is under the same constraints as the government that sponsors it has been used repeatedly to outlaw school prayer, school plays of religious stories, etc.

Your ignorance is profound. But considering how you refuse to acknowledge well known facts like the incorporation of state entities, including public education, in constitutional protections shows you are deliberately ignorant. So sad.

When you can actually argue facts instead of mindlessly ignoring them, the debate can continue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

my only question is can that college prohibit carrying a legal concealed weapon on campus - i do now know the laws of that jurisdiction... do you?

Pennsylvania is an open carry state, meaning that anyone not prohibited from possessing firearms can carry them openly and without any government permission slip.....except in Philly, where you can still open carry but you must have that gov permission slip.

Private universities, being private property, may indeed prohibit any weapons on campus. One would think that public universities, being semi properties of the state, would not be able to, but somewhere along the lines, the PA assembly gave the executives authority to write their own rules, whether they violated the state constitution or not.

 

[christiefan915]

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.

I'll have to disagree with that. Society at the time of the Constitution was even more gender and race biased than it is today. The Founders simply did not consider women as being on the same level as men. Today we know that the word "men" is shorthand for "people" but that's a relatively recent development.

 

[Good Luck]

Next time, don't waste so much time and effort trying to baffle me with a mountain of quotes, opinions and supposition.

BTW: I do sincerely apologize for "baffling" you with quotes from the founders. I should have realized the thoughts and words of free, liberty loving men would be well beyond your comprehension.

 

[Good Luck]

I'll have to disagree with that. Society at the time of the Constitution was even more gender and race biased than it is today. The Founders simply did not consider women as being on the same level as men. Today we know that the word "men" is shorthand for "people" but that's a relatively recent development.

While the language of the time was definitely more patriarchical, I am not certain I agree that the founders attitudes were as bad as you claim. The early U.S. was still in large part a frontier society in which women, by necessity, worked and fought along side the men in many cases (the major exception being in formal military units). They were not unaware of the capabilities of frontier women.

 

[Damocles]

I'll have to disagree with that. Society at the time of the Constitution was even more gender and race biased than it is today. The Founders simply did not consider women as being on the same level as men. Today we know that the word "men" is shorthand for "people" but that's a relatively recent development.

No. It isn't recent.

In the past when gender was uncertain it was proper to use the male gendered pronouns. What is a recent development is the he/she, him/her, or using the female pronoun when uncertain.

 

[Taichiliberal]

She made a joke about feminism. Thanks for getting it.

The whole point here is that you do not understand the Constitution better than the people who wrote it.

Wrong again, toodles. The point here is that your compadre cannot logically or factually prove his case. If you bother to read my last response, you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.

The whole nonsense by the gun nut/anti-gov't article and subsequent subject of the article just doesn't stand the light of day. Careful scrutiny and application of easily accessible information disproves the contentions, and makes Ms. NRA on Campus case dubious at best. If YOU disagree with me, then debate the issue instead of throwing stones.

 

[Taichiliberal]

BTW: I do sincerely apologize for "baffling" you with quotes from the founders. I should have realized the thoughts and words of free, liberty loving men would be well beyond your comprehension.

Learn to read carefully and comprehensively (damn, I'm tired of typing that), I wrote that you shouldn't waste time "trying" to baffle me with a slew of quotations that DO NOT answer my question or provide the quotation of the passage, amendment from the Constitution that states "exactly" what you assert. What you did was a variation of the old addage, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brillance, baffle 'em with bullshit." This seems to be your forte.

So like the typical defeated neocon, you just quote me out of context and try to bullshit past the fact that you FAILED to meet a simple burden of proof, or honestly answer/respond to my last statement. But do carry on, my insipidly stubborn neocon friend....it's really all you have.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Wrong again, toodles. The point here is that your compadre cannot logically or factually prove his case. If you bother to read my last response, you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.

The whole nonsense by the gun nut/anti-gov't article and subsequent subject of the article just doesn't stand the light of day. Careful scrutiny and application of easily accessible information disproves the contentions, and makes Ms. NRA on Campus case dubious at best. If YOU disagree with me, then debate the issue instead of throwing stones.

Wrong, you cannot find a single contributing author or thinker to the Constitution that says anything about the 2nd Amendment that agrees with you over Good Luck, because you are advocating fascism.

 

[Good Luck]

How many times do you need the same references? Are you incapable of looking up the 1st, 2nd and 14th Amendments?

It's simple - at least to a free person. Totalitarians cannot grasp freedom sop maybe it is too difficult for you to comprehend without color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to tell what each one is.

The first Amendment states very clearly that congress is forbidden to make any laws which abridge free speech or the right to assembly.

The 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th Amendment says that NO government agency (that includes the administration of government sponsored education) has the authority to remove the rights of a U.S. citizen (ie: those rights, enumerated and unenumerated, which are guaranteed in the B.O.R.) without due process of law.

Therefore, any rules made by a STATE college which abridge the right of free assembly (such a requiring some arbitrary minimum membership, requiring the inclusion of members which may not be desired by the group, etc.) are unconstitutional. They interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of a citizen of the United States of America without due process.

It's too bad you cannot comprehend such a simple deduction. I have referred to the B.O.R., specifically the 1st and 2nd Amendments several times, as well as pointing out the 14th Amendment incorporates the B.O.R. to all levels of government and their agencies. Yet you keep insisting I somehow "fail" to answer your question? Bull shit. You simply haven't the ability to comprehend the language of individual liberty. Sorry.

Either that or you are too big a fucking loser to acknowledge facts you find undesirable.

As for the quotes - they refute your tired, age old, and recently completely negated by SCOTUS, liberal LIE that the 2nd Amendment's only intent was to provide for a militia. But then, if you weren't so baffled by them, you'd have understood that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Concede what point? Go back and read, genius. Or stop playing dumb! Can you or can you not refute that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights intended the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right for the purpose of self defense and defense of liberty, and NOT, as you falsely claim, meant only for militia? Not quite bunky....you left this little item by Jefferson out: "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482

And check this out:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

As for the right being incorporated to the states, that is through the 14th Amendment, Finally! It took you long enough! which INCLUDES all state authorities, such as state sponsored colleges. That principle has been upheld in multiple court cases. As I indirectly pointed out (but obviously went right over your pointy little head) the principle that public education is under the same constraints as the government that sponsors it has been used repeatedly to outlaw school prayer, school plays of religious stories, etc. What "court cases" are you referring to? Cases where the 14th Amendment was incorporated to defend college kids against an injustice? Because I got news for you bunky...the jury is still out on whether the 14th Amendment can be applied to a State's gun laws and subsequent the 2nd Amendment. Hell, as an example, check out the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Nordyke v King. Bottom line: you can say it is, but the best legal minds are not exactly sure. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm As for the rest of your assertions...stay on target....gun laws, college...NOT school prayer in public schools (whole other smoke, you know).

Your ignorance is profound. TBut considering how you refuse to acknowledge well known facts like the incorporation of state entities, including public education, in constitutional protections shows you are deliberately ignorant. So sad. What's sad is that it took your dumb ass several days to figure out the old gun nut tactic of trying to link the 14th amendment to the 2nd amendment for specific cases.....and you STILL cannot get a slam dunk, because there is NO LEGAL PRECEDENT to support you. Good luck if Ms. NRA College Kid can pony that lame horse to the SCOTUS, given the dubious nature as to how she instigated the controversy.

When you can actually argue facts instead of mindlessly ignoring them, the debate can continue.

Please, it me this long to get your dumb ass to this point...as the record shows. I'll even forgive the FACT that you ignore most of my points but spew forth your supposition and conjecture as fact. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Wrong again, toodles. The point here is that your compadre cannot logically or factually prove his case. If you bother to read my last response, you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.

The whole nonsense by the gun nut/anti-gov't article and subsequent subject of the article just doesn't stand the light of day. Careful scrutiny and application of easily accessible information disproves the contentions, and makes Ms. NRA on Campus case dubious at best. If YOU disagree with me, then debate the issue instead of throwing stones.

Wrong, you cannot find a single contributing author or thinker to the Constitution that says anything about the 2nd Amendment that agrees with you over Good Luck, because you are advocating fascism.

I love it when jokers like you make these grandiose statements WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Here genius, for your education:

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482


That's just for starters. Do your homework, toodles.

 

[Taichiliberal]

How many times do you need the same references? Are you incapable of looking up the 1st, 2nd and 14th Amendments?

It's simple - at least to a free person. Totalitarians cannot grasp freedom sop maybe it is too difficult for you to comprehend without color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to tell what each one is.

The first Amendment states very clearly that congress is forbidden to make any laws which abridge free speech or the right to assembly.

The 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th Amendment says that NO government agency (that includes the administration of government sponsored education) has the authority to remove the rights of a U.S. citizen (ie: those rights, enumerated and unenumerated, which are guaranteed in the B.O.R.) without due process of law.

Therefore, any rules made by a STATE college which abridge the right of free assembly (such a requiring some arbitrary minimum membership, requiring the inclusion of members which may not be desired by the group, etc.) are unconstitutional. They interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of a citizen of the United States of America without due process.

It's too bad you cannot comprehend such a simple deduction. I have referred to the B.O.R., specifically the 1st and 2nd Amendments several times, as well as pointing out the 14th Amendment incorporates the B.O.R. to all levels of government and their agencies. Yet you keep insisting I somehow "fail" to answer your question? Bull shit. You simply haven't the ability to comprehend the language of individual liberty. Sorry.

Either that or you are too big a fucking loser to acknowledge facts you find undesirable.

As for the quotes - they refute your tired, age old, and recently completely negated by SCOTUS, liberal LIE that the 2nd Amendment's only intent was to provide for a militia. But then, if you weren't so baffled by them, you'd have understood that.

So all you do is just ignore anything I source or say and repeat your accusations. Brilliant move.....if it weren't for peoples' ability to click back, read the posts and see your folly.

Oh, and FYI

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482


I got news for you bunky...the jury is still out on whether the 14th Amendment can be applied to a State's gun laws and subsequent the 2nd Amendment. Hell, as an example, check out the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Nordyke v King. Bottom line: you can say it is, but the best legal minds are not exactly sure. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/beararms.htm

And again, you ditz, your little NRA college stooge wasn't denied free assembly, she purposely ignored the college rules, created her own flyer instead of the official application (which requires signatures), made claims of representation when in fact she had not confirmed her actions with the national office of reference. She did not approach student gov't, nor did she just have casual meetings or discussions, nor did she advertize on campus bulletin boards. Her actions were deliberate to undercut campus protocol in order to challenge administrative policy regarding student safety.

We've done this dance, my willfully ignorant NRA loving friend. You can repeat your supposition and conjecture until doomsday...but you can't prove it in court, nor can you sweep away University rules with due process. Like I said, State laws allow grad student to drink, but college campus laws don't. I don't hear you or the other gun dupes screaming about "rights" on that one. By your logic, the 14th Amendment is a lock for the drinkers to abolish the campus law about drinking. Hmmm, another "totalitarian" rule for you to attack. Get cracking, bunky!

 

[Good Luck]

From the 9th Circuit Court opinion:

"The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments..."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767
Try again, Twinky. This from what has been for the last 3 decades the most anti-2nd Amendment circuit court in the U.S. The 2nd is, as of now, officially and fully incorporated to the states. Until/unless in the unlikely event of SCOTUS overturning it, it will remain incorporated. Too bad for you and your totalitarian cronies, huh?

And for the jillionth time, when a rule from a GOVERNMENT AGENCY limits your right of free assembly with undue requirements such as minimum membership, then FREE PEOPLE have the right to challenge said rule through various means, including ignoring the damned thing. All you fucking totalitarians can focus on is "There were rules! She broke them! She's a bad, bad girl!!"

And I still say your real complaint against the young lady is what she is supporting, and not how she is supporting it. If she were supporting one of your liberal-stamp-of-approval issues, you'd be all up in arms about her right to pass out fliers.

Pathetic fucking loser.

Oh, and when, prey tell, was the 2nd Amendment written?

When did TJ talk about congressional support of the militia? 21 years later, when circumstances indicated the War of 1812 was on the horizon in the aftermath of the Chesapeake Affair.

When did he make the other quotes? When he was talking about INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, not preparing for a possible military showdown.

Gotta know your history, Twinky.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

I love it when jokers like you make these grandiose statements WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Here genius, for your education:

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 [/B][/COLOR]

Hey dumbass, note that Jefferson was referring to external forces and not the force of government, local insurrection, etc. Obviously the military is best suited for that, but since Jefferson did not believe in standing armies (like many founders, who drew the line at a Navy and Marine Corps), he referred to an organized militia which would be the next best thing.

 

[Taichiliberal]

From the 9th Circuit Court opinion:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95767
Try again, Twinky. This from what has been for the last 3 decades the most anti-2nd Amendment circuit court in the U.S. The 2nd is, as of now, officially and fully incorporated to the states. Until/unless in the unlikely event of SCOTUS overturning it, it will remain incorporated. Too bad for you and your totalitarian cronies, huh?

And for the jillionth time, when a rule from a GOVERNMENT AGENCY limits your right of free assembly with undue requirements such as minimum membership, then FREE PEOPLE have the right to challenge said rule through various means, including ignoring the damned thing. All you fucking totalitarians can focus on is "There were rules! She broke them! She's a bad, bad girl!!"

And I still say your real complaint against the young lady is what she is supporting, and not how she is supporting it. If she were supporting one of your liberal-stamp-of-approval issues, you'd be all up in arms about her right to pass out fliers.

Pathetic fucking loser.

Oh, and when, prey tell, was the 2nd Amendment written?

When did TJ talk about congressional support of the militia? 21 years later, when circumstances indicated the War of 1812 was on the horizon in the aftermath of the Chesapeake Affair.

When did he make the other quotes? When he was talking about INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, not preparing for a possible military showdown.

Gotta know your history, Twinky.

Hey genius, when I took you to task regarding your incorrect application of the definition of "totalitarianism", I notice not a peep from you...yet you continue to incorrectly use it. Shows what a stubborn fool you are....you can't honestly debate an issue.

Oh, and ONCE again, you only use PARTS of information that suits your needs, and then YOU IGNORE THE REST. How in the hell did you get through high school with that attitude is beyond me. What you should have done is READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY...for my source page stated regarding the 9th Circuit Courts decision regarding Nordyke vs. King....instead of running to the neocon rag the WND for some half assed snow job. Here master mind, from the actual decision....PAY ATTENTION.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’
First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although
we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated
against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s
refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.
AFFIRMED.


As for the rest of your repetitive bullshit....it's already been addressed and disproven in previous posts. You can repeat it until doomsday, but you can't logically get around my counters. So dance, clown, dance.

 

[Taichiliberal]

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 [/b][/color]

Hey dumbass, note that Jefferson was referring to external forces and not the force of government, local insurrection, etc. Obviously the military is best suited for that, but since Jefferson did not believe in standing armies (like many founders, who drew the line at a Navy and Marine Corps), he referred to an organized militia which would be the next best thing.

And since when was a militia formed solely for defense against a potential domestic problems? See master mind, you and your compadres kept wailing that Jefferson concurred with your mindset that the second amendment guaranteed citizens the right to possess guns without being part of a militia. Unfortunately for you and the other willfully ignornant jokers, Jefferson here makes it quite clear who the militia are and why they must be defined and affirmed by Congress. Try as you might, you can't separate the two. But do keep trying....I enjoy a good clown show.