liberals hate first amendment

[Good Luck]

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.

The only thing you have disproven, twinkey, is your intelligence.

The fact that the court upheld the right of the county to keep it's ban does NOT negate the fact that they also incorporated the Heller decision to the states. The Hell;er decision itself stated its intent was not to remove all power to regulate firearms. It's one of those amazing "We know what the Constitution says, but we'll ignore it anyway" decisions of the recent courts.

All you've done to disprove my use of the word totalitarian is bitch about it. I gave you the dictionary definition of both totalitarian and totalitarianism. Since totalitarianism (blind obedience to authority, and abusive authority of government) is what you support in your rhetoric, that makes you a totalitarian. There are other accurate labels for the bullshit political philosophy you subscribe to. But a skunk stinks no matter what you call it.

And you are the one who is beyond honesty in debate. Most of your links are to liberal opinion/blog sites, like you link to the university's opinion on the 9th CC's decision. But you call those links "facts". You insinuate that I did not know the college regulations, regulations which I had to point out to you. That makes you the liar, twinkey.

(BTW: you never did anser what happens to the right of free assembly under your precious totalitarian rules if a proposed organization can only find 9 members, or does not want a faculty member as a sponsor.)

I give you the actual language of the Constitution, language of the actual debates that took place when the B.O.R. was written, clearly indicating the intent of the writers does NOT match your revisionary opinion of them. I also gave you the actual language of the section of the 9th CC decision which YOU (not I ) deliberately left out of your argument. You pointed out your carefully selected portion, I pointed out the rest, since it was the section I pointed out that made a lie out of your claim.

Truly a pathetic, lying little twinky. If you weren't such a poisonous personality, I would almost feel sorry for you.

 

[Good Luck]

"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]



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.

Hey, twinky, do you want to point out the phrase or words in TJ's quote that indicates his desire to build a strong militia in anyway negates the intent of the 2nd Amendment? Does he even MENTION the 2nd Amendment? No, he points out that the government has the resources (true) to build a stronger militia through direct congressional support than could otherwise occur.

But keep trying, twinky. If you read enough you may actually learn something, even if you end up lying about it later.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

In actuality, it should be evident what becoming an elected official does to ones outlook on freedom and liberty. Jefferson was perhaps number 3 of all the framers who not only felt that 'the people' should be the only sovereign of the new nation, but should always be armed as well, yet the year of that quote comes from his last year of his presidency......when his ideas and outlook of who should hold total power over freedom had obviously tilted in favor of government control. It brings to mind an earlier quote about how elected officials, having lost sight of who is in power, seeks to usurp for their own purposes and why the citizenry should at all times be equally armed as any standing army.

 

[Good Luck]

In actuality, it should be evident what becoming an elected official does to ones outlook on freedom and liberty. Jefferson was perhaps number 3 of all the framers who not only felt that 'the people' should be the only sovereign of the new nation, but should always be armed as well, yet the year of that quote comes from his last year of his presidency......when his ideas and outlook of who should hold total power over freedom had obviously tilted in favor of government control. It brings to mind an earlier quote about how elected officials, having lost sight of who is in power, seeks to usurp for their own purposes and why the citizenry should at all times be equally armed as any standing army.

I'll point the same thing out to you that I pointed out to twinky. Show me where TJ mentions anywhere that his idea for assuring a strong militia abrogates the intent of the 2nd Amendment. No where does he suggest that the government is to take over. He does state that it is "incumbent on us at every meeting" to evaluate the strength of the militia and to provide for said militia as necessary, and organize defensive posture between the states. He does mention that some of the states were too lax in maintenance of their militias, thus placing the burden on congress during national emergency.

This speech took place in 1808, a year+ after the Chesapeake Affair during which clashes with British interference were accelerating; when it was becoming apparent that a direct conflict with England was coming. By 1808 England was actively supporting Native American uprisings against which militia forces were called to duty to repel. TJ is saying we need a strong militia, and it was part of Congresses duties to assure that happened - look at article 1, section 8 which gives Congress the authority to raise and fund armies. But TJ was also saying it was better to use that authority to assure we had a strong militia than to raise and maintain a standing army.

Read the entire speech here:
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3501

As you can see, twinky pulls the very crap he keeps accusing me of by carefully selecting passages that address TJ calling for support of the militia. What he leaves out is the paragraph about how arms are becoming harder to procure by the populace due to the importation restrictions imposed by Britain - the very type of import restrictions that will eventually lead to the War of 1812.

The following paragraphs are a better indication of TJs reasons and intent for this speech to Congress:

Under the acts of March 11th and April 23d, respecting arms, the difficulty of procuring them from abroad, during the present situation and dispositions of Europe, induced us to direct our whole efforts to the means of internal supply. The public factories have, therefore, been enlarged, additional machineries erected, and in proportion as artificers can be found or formed, their effect, already more than doubled, may be increased so as to keep pace with the yearly increase of the militia. The annual sums appropriated by the latter act, have been directed to the encouragement of private factories of arms, and contracts have been entered into with individual undertakers to nearly the amount of the first year's appropriation.

The suspension of our foreign commerce, produced by the injustice of the belligerent powers, and the consequent losses and sacrifices of our citizens, are subjects of just concern. The situation into which we have thus been forced, has impelled us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to internal manufactures and improvements. The extent of this conversion is daily increasing, and little doubt remains that the establishments formed and forming will -- under the auspices of cheaper materials and subsistence, the freedom of labor from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions -- become permanent. The commerce with the Indians, too, within our own boundaries, is likely to receive abundant aliment from the same internal source, and will secure to them peace and the progress of civilization, undisturbed by practices hostile to both.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Show me where TJ mentions anywhere that his idea for assuring a strong militia abrogates the intent of the 2nd Amendment. No where does he suggest that the government is to take over. He does state that it is "incumbent on us at every meeting" to evaluate the strength of the militia and to provide for said militia as necessary, and organize defensive posture between the states. He does mention that some of the states were too lax in maintenance of their militias, thus placing the burden on congress during national emergency.

That quote doesn't and that's my fault for not being more specific about it, so I can see where my statement was misunderstood. It was in other areas of government that he was more intent on the central government having more power. In the mentioned quote, he was definitely stressing that congress exercise their power to arm and train the militia, that militia which comprised all able bodied men.

Maybe what 'twinkie' (why the nickname?) is forgetting is part of Art 1 Sec 8 that states thus:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

of course, he could be intentionally ignoring that part as well.

 

[Minister of Truth]

"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]



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.

They viewed the federal government as a domestic threat to the people's liberty. That is what the militia was formed for. Most founding father's badmouthed the militia in regard to prosecuting the Revolutionary War and viewed it as vastly inferior to the Continental Army in terms of discipline and competence. But despite that, they all viewed the militia as necessary to deal with domestic affairs. Why do you think the military is not allowed to engage in law enforcement, and it is the National Guard that gets called up to put down riots, deal with natural disasters, and conduct rescue missions on mountains, etc.?

 

[Good Luck]

That quote doesn't and that's my fault for not being more specific about it, so I can see where my statement was misunderstood. It was in other areas of government that he was more intent on the central government having more power. In the mentioned quote, he was definitely stressing that congress exercise their power to arm and train the militia, that militia which comprised all able bodied men.

Most of the anti-federalists discovered that many of their principles of scattered authority do not work well in practice. And actually the militia problem may be as good an example as any. When the federal government started calling out the militia to deal with border pressures, they found that some states had fairly strong and organized militias, while other states had hardly anything, not even enough to be called a rabble in arms. It was immediately recognized that having only the states with strong militias bear the brunt of the defensive posture would not go well with the states, since they were the ones paying when their militias were called to duty. So TJ suggested that the federal government should be the authority organizing AND PAYING the militias whenever they were called for federal duty. He also suggested that the federal government was in a position to assist states without a strong militia.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by 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]



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.

They viewed the federal government as a domestic threat to the people's liberty. That is what the militia was formed for. Ahhh, but didn't you put for the contention that my quote was strictly referring to defense against foreign invasion? So make up your mind...which is it?
Most founding father's badmouthed the militia in regard to prosecuting the Revolutionary War and viewed it as vastly inferior to the Continental Army in terms of discipline and competence. But despite that, they all viewed the militia as necessary to deal with domestic affairs. Why do you think the military is not allowed to engage in law enforcement, and it is the National Guard that gets called up to put down riots, deal with natural disasters, and conduct rescue missions on mountains, etc.?

And again, you are talking about MILITIAS! You are talking about National Guard...and ORGANIZATION THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY JOIN, LIKE A MILITIA. So once again, the 2nd Amendment is not about giving any Joe Schmoe the right to own a gun...it's about those who belong to a militia, formed by the people.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The only thing you have disproven, twinkey, is your intelligence.

The fact that the court upheld the right of the county to keep it's ban does NOT negate the fact that they also incorporated the Heller decision to the states. The Hell;er decision itself stated its intent was not to remove all power to regulate firearms. It's one of those amazing "We know what the Constitution says, but we'll ignore it anyway" decisions of the recent courts. No stupid, they said exactly what they meant....they may personally agree with you, but they didn't have a legal leg to stand on, which is why they ruled as they did. You can piss your pants in anger, but you can't bullshit past that FACT as it was written!

All you've done to disprove my use of the word totalitarian is bitch about it. I gave you the dictionary definition of both totalitarian and totalitarianism. Since totalitarianism (blind obedience to authority, and abusive authority of government) is what you support in your rhetoric, that makes you a totalitarian. There are other accurate labels for the bullshit political philosophy you subscribe to. But a skunk stinks no matter what you call it. No stupid, all I've done is taken you to task on the FACT that you couldn't logically or factually apply the definition to any of the subjects you presented as a "libs" application of totalitariansim. Just because YOU don't like something, that doesn't mean your labeling is accurate. So, instead of addressing how I disproved you point for point. You just jump back onto your bullshit bicycle and REPEAT a generic accusation without ever honestly debating it. That's why I enjoy exposing you for the willfully ingornant neocon blowhard that you are.
And you are the one who is beyond honesty in debate. Most of your links are to liberal opinion/blog sites, like you link to the university's opinion on the 9th CC's decision. But you call those links "facts". You insinuate that I did not know the college regulations, regulations which I had to point out to you. That makes you the liar, twinkey. Sorry toodles, but your accusation is just hot air, because others can click on and READ what I source, and note that YOU cannot logically or factually disprove anything. You seem to think repeating" You're a liar, it's not true" is all you need to prove your case. They should have taught you in high school, that doesn't work in a written debate....it just makes you look like a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

(BTW: you never did anser what happens to the right of free assembly under your precious totalitarian rules if a proposed organization can only find 9 members, or does not want a faculty member as a sponsor.) Another lie, as the recorded posts show. This was addressed, your NRA bimbo did NOT pick up a simple application to get her signatures...she circumnavigated the rules. Parrot your bullshit all you want and pretend no one responds....the recorded posts shows you for the liar that you are.

I give you the actual language of the Constitution, language of the actual debates that took place when the B.O.R. was written, clearly indicating the intent of the writers does NOT match your revisionary opinion of them. I also gave you the actual language of the section of the 9th CC decision which YOU (not I ) deliberately left out of your argument. You pointed out your carefully selected portion, I pointed out the rest, since it was the section I pointed out that made a lie out of your claim. And if the recorded posts didn't show my repsonses, one would believe you. But that is not the case, and it is YOU who is the proven liar.....despite your denial and repetitive blatherings.
Truly a pathetic, lying little twinky. If you weren't such a poisonous personality, I would almost feel sorry for you.

You're done, toodles. The recorded posts show you to be a liar....I detest liars. I've reduced you to these moronic denials and lies in spite of evidence to the contrary, so there is no more need to engage you on this subject. You may have the last predictable word.....I'm done humilitating you here on this subject.

 

[Good Luck]

You're done, toodles. The recorded posts show you to be a liar....I detest liars. I've reduced you to these moronic denials and lies in spite of evidence to the contrary, so there is no more need to engage you on this subject. You may have the last predictable word.....I'm done humilitating you here on this subject.

Yea, lie like a rug and runaway, twinky. I have disproven every single point you have tried to lie about. Too bad for you. And then you lie even about that.

But, like You say, the record IS there showing what a truly lying brainless twit you are. Must really suck to be you.

Bye bye now, little twinky.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And again, you are talking about MILITIAS! You are talking about National Guard...and ORGANIZATION THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY JOIN, LIKE A MILITIA. So once again, the 2nd Amendment is not about giving any Joe Schmoe the right to own a gun...it's about those who belong to a militia, formed by the people.

this is a bogus argument and would have to be presupposed that the founders were imagining the national guard when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. A completely moronic idea. The 'militia' was able bodied citizens, bearing their own arms, training together, and organizing under the principle that free men had the interests of freedom at heart and that standing armies were not to be trusted. in other words, the militia is not the national guard simply because some judge in 1903 said it was.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Originally Posted by 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]



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.



And again, you are talking about MILITIAS! You are talking about National Guard...and ORGANIZATION THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY JOIN, LIKE A MILITIA. So once again, the 2nd Amendment is not about giving any Joe Schmoe the right to own a gun...it's about those who belong to a militia, formed by the people.

Yes it is. "Shall not be infringed" by any other name is still "shall not be infringed." The people are the militia, which will not be uniform, legal, officially organized, officially recognized, funded, or equiped by the federal government on the day that it turns on the people.

 

[Taichiliberal]

this is a bogus argument and would have to be presupposed that the founders were imagining the national guard when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. A completely moronic idea.

Tell it to your compadre Threedee....he's the one that made the comparison. I just pointed out the painfully obvious that (again) demonstrates how his initial argument just doesn't hold up to examination no matter what avenue he goes down.

The 'militia' was able bodied citizens, bearing their own arms, training together, and organizing under the principle that free men had the interests of freedom at heart and that standing armies were not to be trusted. in other words, the militia is not the national guard simply because some judge in 1903 said it was.

"organizing" is the key word in your statement.......it wasn't just every tom, dick & harry milling about with guns on weekends. Yep, if standing armies weren't to organized, then the citizens had the right to ORGANIZE A MILITIA. What's interesting is how you are so keen to interpret the Constitution in your favor to prove a legality, yet you automatically dismiss a LEGAL judgement that really does no harm to the whole concept of state militias....which still exist today in some states along with National Guard (but without the same responsiblities as the National Guard).

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes it is. "Shall not be infringed" by any other name is still "shall not be infringed." The people are the militia, which will not be uniform, legal, officially organized, officially recognized, funded, or equiped by the federal government on the day that it turns on the people.

Newsflash: you have to be OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS PART OF A MILITIA. Do some research and you'll see that several states have operating militias within them outside of the National Guard. No one is "infringing" their right to exist and they are outside of federal influence. Bottom line: some jackass with a gun is NOT automatically a part of a militia. And since you can legally own a gun in a state, the whole NRA hysteria is just pissing in the wind.

 

[Minister of Truth]

"organizing" is the key word in your statement.......it wasn't just every tom, dick & harry milling about with guns on weekends. Yep, if standing armies weren't to organized, then the citizens had the right to ORGANIZE A MILITIA. What's interesting is how you are so keen to interpret the Constitution in your favor to prove a legality, yet you automatically dismiss a LEGAL judgement that really does no harm to the whole concept of state militias....which still exist today in some states along with National Guard (but without the same responsiblities as the National Guard).

The people still exist today, along with clear definitions of the words "shall," "not" "be" and "infringed." And yes, it was every braugham, nick, and larry from every village in the colonies that marched around and practiced drilling and marksmanship in the Revolutionary era.

 

[Whomever]

Yes it is. "Shall not be infringed" by any other name is still "shall not be infringed." The people are the militia, which will not be uniform, legal, officially organized, officially recognized, funded, or equiped by the federal government on the day that it turns on the people.

Right we need to privatize the military!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Newsflash: you have to be OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS PART OF A MILITIA. Do some research and you'll see that several states have operating militias within them outside of the National Guard. No one is "infringing" their right to exist and they are outside of federal influence. Bottom line: some jackass with a gun is NOT automatically a part of a militia. And since you can legally own a gun in a state, the whole NRA hysteria is just pissing in the wind.

I happen to be a Guardsman, but that is not what guarantees me the right to bare arms. The militia is supposed to protect people from the govt., and so there's no point in it being "recognized" as a force baring weapons by the very entity it is designed to defend against. My role in the Guard is not the same as a militia, for the very reason that I am organized by the government. In my case, I even perform a federal mission which is very highly organized under a binational (US and Canada) command called NORAD.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The people still exist today, along with clear definitions of the words "shall," "not" "be" and "infringed." And yes, it was every braugham, nick, and larry from every village in the colonies that marched around and practiced drilling and marksmanship in the Revolutionary era.

I've already responded to you on this earlier.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I've already responded to you on this earlier.

So, you found new definitions for the terms stated? I didn't see them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I happen to be a Guardsman, but that is not what guarantees me the right to bare arms. Didn't say it did, now did I? READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT I WRITE. The militia is supposed to protect people from the govt., and so there's no point in it being "recognized" as a force baring weapons by the very entity it is designed to defend against. Again, that's YOUR story...YOUR interpretation. Unfortunately for you, the 2nd Amendment does NOT say this, and my quote from Jefferson does not infer that just because you're a citizen you are automatically a part of the militia. For a militia to exist, people have to train together, organize. Some yahoo with a shotgun on his mantel piece will not run out the door and automatically coordinate with his neighbors on all levels efficiently. My role in the Guard is not the same as a militia, for the very reason that I am organized by the government. Ahhh, but like the Guard, you have to JOIN a militia...and the STATE has to recognize you. As I said before, do the research and see where militias exist in America and how they operate. In my case, I even perform a federal mission which is very highly organized under a binational (US and Canada) command called NORAD.

Congrats (seriously)....but that has no bearing on your assertions.