Democrats exist to undermine and violate the Constitution

[Legion]

No kidding. After 2 - 3 days of intentionally ignorant quizzing it's most appropriate.

Think so? I was referring to your assertion that "the content I linked to are (sic) facts.

No, the content I linked to are facts.

 

[Noone]

Think so? I was referring to your assertion that "the content I linked to are (sic) facts.

Yes, yes I do.

 

[Legion]

Yes, yes I do.

Well, then.

 

[AProudLefty]

Now Legion changed what he meant after my post.

 

[Into the Night]

Do the US citizens have the right to know if their safety is compromised when someone owns a nuclear device in private?

As with any weapon (or weapon system), the owner is responsible for that weapon. Otherwise, no. Their safety is not compromised.

 

[AProudLefty]

As with any weapon (or weapon system), the owner is responsible for that weapon. Otherwise, no. Their safety is not compromised.

Of course the owner is responsible. You have not answered my question though. Do the citizens have the right to know that other citizens own nuclear devices?

 

[AProudLefty]

Just imagine. When a person is discovered to own at least one nuclear device/bomb, the properties within 10+ miles radius of him would be rendered worthless.

 

[Into the Night]

Do the US citizens have the right to know if their safety is compromised when someone owns a nuclear device in private?

Their safety isn't compromised.

 

[Into the Night]

No, the content I linked to are facts.

Holy Links are not facts nor a proof. Speaking Liberal doesn't work. Try English.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course the owner is responsible. You have not answered my question though. Do the citizens have the right to know that other citizens own nuclear devices?

I have answered your question. Don't ask it again. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Just imagine. When a person is discovered to own at least one nuclear device/bomb, the properties within 10+ miles radius of him would be rendered worthless.

Why? Properties adjacent to army munitions depos are not worthless.

 

[artichoke]

Fallacy falla...

Just stop. This ludicrous bullshit is no longer happening.

You have shown not one iota of proof that the Founders ever intended the Constitution (which even specifically bars foreigners from certain things) to apply to foreigners, and I can show you tons of cases of them outright saying the structure of the Constitution was specifically designed to protect the states and the citizens, while never MENTIONING foreigners (presumably because they never thought anyone would need something so obvious spelled out for them).



You want to argue that the millions of Germans we shot in WWII should have instead each been arrested, read their non-existent constitutional rights, given ACLU lawyers, and been allowed to keep their guns...or that all U.S. tariffs are illegal because foreigners are being taxed without representation in our government, do it to someone who smokes enough crack to take such obviously bogus nonsense seriously.

The irrefutable truth is that some parts of the Constitution expressly ban foreigners from having the same protections as citizens, while other parts don't mention them either way but are universally recognized (including by SCOTUS) as never having been intended or authorized to apply to them (like equal opportunity for government employment, protections against being detained without probable cause or deported to another country, searches and seizures, etc.,) and still others remain hotly debated and are regularly hashed out in court, sometimes resulting in limited versions of constitutional rights for foreigners.

No, the Constitution does not apply to foreigners as it would any American citizen. It is literally SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION that you are wrong. So like I said, this asinine idiocy of posturing like anyone who's graduated high school should know this basic civics concept that YOU YOURSELF ARE WRONG ABOUT...stops now.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course the owner is responsible. You have not answered my question though. Do the citizens have the right to know that other citizens own nuclear devices?

do you think you, as a citizen, have the right to know if I own a pokeball?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm pushing more paradoxical bullshit

you simply cannot be taken seriously when you do nothing but spout paradoxical bullshit. fix it.

 

[artichoke]

you simply cannot be taken seriously when you do nothing but spout paradoxical bullshit. fix it.

1) Says the guy directly contradicting THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

Let's see, how can the Constitution pertain the same to citizens as it does non-citizens while it specifically, by name, in clear, plain English, bans non-citizens from certain privileges and protections?

2) No one can produce a shred of evidence to date showing ANY of the Founders in ANY of their debates at the constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, their letters, ANYTHING...indicating that what is in the Constitution was intended to apply to foreigners. You condescending self-appointed "experts" literally just decided that based on nothing, which makes you no better than the left on making up whatever you feel like about the Constitution.

3) We CAN produce TONS of evidence showing that the crafting of the Constitution revolved entirely around keeping this new Federal Government we were creating from trampling the God-given rights of the states and citizens, with literally zero mention, or even implication, of protecting foreigners.

4) There are obvious, gigantic logistical issues with applying the Constitution to foreigners, which we have already identified, which is why SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that you're wrong, and that the Founders clearly never intended or authorized what you are claiming.

5) If you rob a gas station, that violates no federal law, only state/local law. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a "paradox." It's just the difference between one jurisdiction and another.

I've tried multiple times to stop this fucking retarded misunderstanding of yours from taking over the thread, but you insist on continuing to pick this fight while providing zero evidence, offering zero refutation of the evidence proving that you are wrong, and acting like a condescending douche bag to the people proving you wrong at every turn. So from here on out, I am going to refer you back to this post to remind you of all the ways your provably idiotic misinterpretation has already been dismantled and exposed as garbage logic with no actual research behind it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Says the guy directly contradicting THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

Let's see, how can the Constitution pertain the same to citizens as it does non-citizens while it specifically, by name, in clear, plain English, bans non-citizens from certain privileges and protections?

because the Constitution isn't about the citizens, it's about the government. what it can and cannot do. plain, simple, english. Something that your liberal indoctrination centers clearly failed at with you

 

[artichoke]

because the Constitution isn't about the citizens, it's about the government. what it can and cannot do. plain, simple, english. Something that your liberal indoctrination centers clearly failed at with you

I refer you back to where this idiotic "different jurisdictions having different rules must be a paradox" fallacy was already debunked.

As has already been repeatedly demonstrated, we agree on this (try to comprehend it this time). The Constitution is about what the Federal Government can and cannot do...and it has a jurisdiction...and that jurisdiction does not just magically override that of other countries. It only applies to U.S. jurisdiction, FUCKING OBVIOUSLY.

So go back to the 10th or 11th time I explained all this out with proof (notice how you provided zero proof while I repeatedly backed my claims up with specifics?), right here, and keep reading it until you grasp it. Continuing to try to take everyone in this circle will just get you referred back to the post that already proved this bullshit wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the leaps and bound you must have to make in your own brain pan to help you make such moronic claims is incredible

 

[artichoke]

the leaps and bound you must have to make in your own brain pan to help you make such moronic claims is incredible

The debunked misinformation you are trying to prop up with empty insults has already been dismantled in five separate ways right here. Try actually comprehending what you read.

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=3] (enlarging your text is just annoying)
Just stop. This ludicrous bullshit is no longer happening.

You don't get to order people around or tell them to shut up. You are not the king.

You have shown not one iota of proof that the Founders ever intended the Constitution (which even specifically bars foreigners from certain things) to apply to foreigners, and I can show you tons of cases of them outright saying the structure of the Constitution was specifically designed to protect the states and the citizens, while never MENTIONING foreigners (presumably because they never thought anyone would need something so obvious spelled out for them).

Constitutions do not apply to people. Paradox A.

You want to argue that the millions of Germans we shot in WWII should have instead each been arrested, read their non-existent constitutional rights, given ACLU lawyers, and been allowed to keep their guns...or that all U.S. tariffs are illegal because foreigners are being taxed without representation in our government, do it to someone who smokes enough crack to take such obviously bogus nonsense seriously.

Never did. Enemy combatants do not have any protections under any constitution. The constitution does not apply to people. Paradox A.

The irrefutable truth is that some parts of the Constitution expressly ban foreigners from having the same protections as citizens,

Constitutions do not apply to people. Paradox A.

while other parts don't mention them either way but are universally recognized (including by SCOTUS)

SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution or what it is. See Article III.

as never having been intended or authorized to apply to them

Constitutions don't apply to people.

(like equal opportunity for government employment,

Not in the Constitution.

protections against being detained without probable cause

The 4th and 5th amendments apply to government, not people. These prohibitions protect everyone, not just citizens.

or deported to another country,

Not in the Constitution.

searches and seizures,

That applies to government.

and still others remain hotly debated and are regularly hashed out in court,

No court has jurisdiction over any constitution. No court can change any constitution.

sometimes resulting in limited versions of constitutional rights for foreigners.

Rights do not come from constitutions. They do not come from a piece of paper. Paradox A.

No, the Constitution does not apply to foreigners as it would any American citizen.

Constitutions do not apply to people. Paradox A.

It is literally SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION that you are wrong.

No such wording in the Constitution. You are making shit up and denying the Constitution.

So like I said, this asinine idiocy of posturing like anyone who's graduated high school should know this basic civics concept that YOU YOURSELF ARE WRONG ABOUT...stops now.

You don't get to order people around. You are not the king. This is not about civics. This is about the constitutions, what they are, and what they apply to.

Straw man fallacy. Paradox A. Insult fallacies. Ruler complex. Attempted proof by assertion. Void quotation (void authority fallacy).