Gun Registration Fails...So Sorry...LOL

Dungheap said:
Gun nuts win 46-54, a "winning" score that only makes sense in the US Senate.
Click to expand...
Refering to the gun rights people as gun nuts will not help you feel better after your "defeet" in the Senate, Dungy. You need to just wake up and smell the shooting range gun powder like the rest of US gun Rights people do, quit fighting US. A win is a win....and we won.... I watched CNN announce the Senate votes today, and they almost started balling on the air, it was sickening to watch. The pro-Liberal bias main stream media could not manipulate the Senate voting like they did with the Presidential Election. Power to the People, to the gun rights People that is.
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
No, the people gave it the power to kill Jews, first by giving it the power to persecute political rivals.
Click to expand...
Nazi Germany first registered all the guns in 1935, they then confiscated all private guns in 1938. After the end of WW2, the surviving Jews were asked why they did not fight back....answer...."because we had no guns". Germany avoided invading tiny Switzerland because it was mandatory for every Swiss Citizen to own a gun, and basically still is.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
just because you don't like the truth does not make it a bad answer.


no it isn't. it's a legal document that forms the federal government. nothing else.
slander is not free speech. libel is not free speech. so it is not the same topic.
no matter how many times you say it, it will not be correct.
Click to expand...

The Constitution definitely represents a social contract.

And you can't bend the truth to fit your worldview. Slander isn't free speech because it is restricted speech. We don't allow slander; it's a kind of speech we say isn't legal. So, it is a limitation on the right.

You just don't want to accept the analogy, because it means you can't apply an unlimited interpretation of the only right you seem to care about.
 
Thing1 said:
The Constitution definitely represents a social contract.

And you can't bend the truth to fit your worldview. Slander isn't free speech because it is restricted speech. We don't allow slander; it's a kind of speech we say isn't legal. So, it is a limitation on the right.

You just don't want to accept the analogy, because it means you can't apply an unlimited interpretation of the only right you seem to care about.
Click to expand...

Those are limitations of use, not capacity. Its illegal to slander yes, but in the same vein it is illegal to go blasting a shotgun down the middle of the street. Same concept.
 
christiefan915 said:
The Nazi government gave itself the right to kill all Jews, gypsies and people it considered undesirable. That doesn't mean it was worthy. Rights are as good or bad as the people who proclaim them. And please don't respond with something like "rights are divine" or "God-given rights."
Click to expand...

And before they did that they first registered then confiscated weapons, starting with the Jews

Much easier to round up when unarmed
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
Yeah they did. It was all over his campaign rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I know about Streicher and Goebbels and their writings, and the anti-Semitism of the age but the Final Solution wasn't implemented until the early 1940s.

"The third and most vitriolic variety of antisemitism in Germany (and elsewhere) is the so-called völkisch antisemitism or racism, and this is the foremost advocate of using violence. Anyhow, one has to be aware that even Hitler until 1938 and possibly 1939 still relied on enforced emigration to get rid of German Jewry; and there did not yet exist any clear-cut concept of killing them. This, however, does not mean that the Nazis elsewhere on all levels did not hesitate to use violent methods, and the inroads against Jews, Jewish shops, and institutions show that very clearly. But there did not exist any formal annihilation program until the second year of the war. It came into being after the "reservation" projects had failed. That, however, does not mean that those methods did not include a lethal component."

http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3850.pdf
 
christiefan915 said:
I know about Streicher and Goebbels and their writings, and the anti-Semitism of the age but the Final Solution wasn't implemented until the early 1940s.

"The third and most vitriolic variety of antisemitism in Germany (and elsewhere) is the so-called völkisch antisemitism or racism, and this is the foremost advocate of using violence. Anyhow, one has to be aware that even Hitler until 1938 and possibly 1939 still relied on enforced emigration to get rid of German Jewry; and there did not yet exist any clear-cut concept of killing them. This, however, does not mean that the Nazis elsewhere on all levels did not hesitate to use violent methods, and the inroads against Jews, Jewish shops, and institutions show that very clearly. But there did not exist any formal annihilation program until the second year of the war. It came into being after the "reservation" projects had failed. That, however, does not mean that those methods did not include a lethal component."

http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203850.pdf
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't implemented until the 40's, but it was part of his rhetoric as early as Mien Kampf. Anti-Semitism in general was a common part of German culture at the time and was readily accepted and encouraged.
 
christiefan915 said:
Why do you think you need to be protected from the state?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you? Are you implying that the state acts only for the good of all? What do you think all the other Amendments (the first ten anyways) are about?
Are you suspicious of the US only or would any nation fall under this?
Click to expand...
Every nation would apply. The inherent nature of government is to grow and increase its power at the expense of the rights of the citizenry.
 
terminal13 said:
Your going to have to expand on that statement.
Click to expand...

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

How on god's green earth does this suggest that Obama chairing a meeting for three days was unconstitutional? Temporary chairman of an organization doesn't equate to getting [something] from a king, prince or foreign state because the UN is none of these; and "chairman" isn't a title of nobility.

Don't tell me you're one of these one world government conspiracy theorists.
 
Thing1 said:
The Constitution definitely represents a social contract.
Click to expand...
show us where it says that.

Thing1 said:
And you can't bend the truth to fit your worldview. Slander isn't free speech because it is restricted speech. We don't allow slander; it's a kind of speech we say isn't legal. So, it is a limitation on the right.
Click to expand...
this is you bending the truth to fit your worldview. slander is not protected, thus it is not free speech. that is not a compromise or a restriction.

Thing1 said:
You just don't want to accept the analogy, because it means you can't apply an unlimited interpretation of the only right you seem to care about.
Click to expand...
this is you trying to make yourself look less like a fool, by painting me as only caring about a single right. would you like a complete listing of my posts concerning the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top