Justice Breyer, you are a damned liar.

[Taichiliberal]

I'm always amazed that the 2nd Amendment is so much more extreme than the 1st in upholding the right/s it addresses by blanketly stating "shall not be infringed" (meaning, governments of all levels can literally do absolutely nothing at all) in contrast to the 1st limiting itself to "Congress shall pass no law," and yet we still have people willing to debate as if the language could be any more clear.

What's amazing is how people continually try to isolate certain parts of an Amendment in order to tack on their supposition and conjecture so that their particular belief becomes a fact of law. It's only when others counter with the comprehensive reading of each amendment to understand what each one is pertaining to, and how others supplement particular rules and regulations that seems to drive the gunners to distraction. Critical thinking as opposed to myopic viewpoints.....something gunners just refuse to learn.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I concur. It's equally odd how many see nothing wrong with blatant codified discrimination against white males, considering discrimination its such a hot button issue in our past and present.

Isn't there a thread that specifically caters to your racial paranoia and angst? This is about the debate over gun ownership rights as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment. Get your hat off your ass and stay on point, will ya please?

 

[Socrtease]

What's amazing is how people continually try to isolate certain parts of an Amendment in order to tack on their supposition and conjecture so that their particular belief becomes a fact of law. It's only when others counter with the comprehensive reading of each amendment to understand what each one is pertaining to, and how others supplement particular rules and regulations that seems to drive the gunners to distraction. Critical thinking as opposed to myopic viewpoints.....something gunners just refuse to learn.

I am also curious. How do you explain that ALL the other amendments protect individual rights, but this is the ONLY one that supposedly protects a collective right?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I am also curious. How do you explain that ALL the other amendments protect individual rights, but this is the ONLY one that supposedly protects a collective right?

And how do you explain how white males are not protected against discrimination in the constitution as others are?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Anyone who stays focused on the 2nd Amendment as being a right protected for militia members only is a fool. There were dozens of commentators that went around to all the states specifically identifying the 2nd Amendment as a protection afforded to ALL civilians that the new federal government could not infringe on their rights to keep and bear arms, as is evidenced by many numerous news articles and speeches distributed prior to the ratification.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's amazing is how people continually try to isolate certain parts of an Amendment in order to tack on their supposition and conjecture so that their particular belief becomes a fact of law. It's only when others counter with the comprehensive reading of each amendment to understand what each one is pertaining to, and how others supplement particular rules and regulations that seems to drive the gunners to distraction. Critical thinking as opposed to myopic viewpoints.....something gunners just refuse to learn.

I am also curious. How do you explain that ALL the other amendments protect individual rights, but this is the ONLY one that supposedly protects a collective right?

See my previous responses on this thread....it's pretty much self explanatory as to who your characteriztion is basically a distortion.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=744974&postcount=52

 

[Taichiliberal]

Anyone who stays focused on the 2nd Amendment as being a right protected for militia members only is a fool. There were dozens of commentators that went around to all the states specifically identifying the 2nd Amendment as a protection afforded to ALL civilians that the new federal government could not infringe on their rights to keep and bear arms, as is evidenced by many numerous news articles and speeches distributed prior to the ratification.

Only a FOOL would start touting some vague references to "commentators" instead of referencing the actual articles and code of law to discuss this issue, as I did on #38 & 39.

Once more, you demonstrate that your screen name is a lie.

 

[NOVA]

Lets stick with the "CODE" as it existed or didn't exist in 12/1791.....anything else is irrelevant.....
Only a fool would refer to "codes of law" that were written 100+ years later and claim they were pertinent to the 2nd amendment as it was penned in 1791...

 

[Minister of Truth]

And as I alluded to, earlier, there is an infinite degree of difference between the possible wording "shall not be denied," and the actual wording, "shall not be infringed."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Only a FOOL would start touting some vague references to "commentators" instead of referencing the actual articles and code of law to discuss this issue, as I did on #38 & 39.

Once more, you demonstrate that your screen name is a lie.

hey FOOL!!! how many 2nd Amendment threads have we had on this board? How many times have I, or any other 2nd Amendment supporter, posted both the quotes and cites for those 'commentators'? how many times have you ignored and avoided those very cites so you didn't have to acknowledge that you were pwned?

 

[Good Luck]

You can always tell when Touchy realizes he's been, yet again, trounced in debate. That is the point when he starts repeatedly referencing his own posts as "proof" and claims victory.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Gun nuts will always be pwned by the writings of James Madison, who wrote the US Constitution, because the Founding Fathers were clear that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual right of all free citizens to own a firearm.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Lets stick with the "CODE" as it existed or didn't exist in 12/1791.....anything else is irrelevant.....
Only a fool would refer to "codes of law" that were written 100+ years later and claim they were pertinent to the 2nd amendment as it was penned in 1791...

Notice folks, how Bravo throws out ANYTHING that doesn't support his assertions and beliefs. Instead, Bravo does the neocon shuffle.....touting on item of information until it's factually proven not to support his contentions, then that item is "irrelevent".

Someone clue this dumb bastard Bravo in.....the Constitution's articles and it's amendments, and all subsequent laws that pertain to the Constitution and it's amendments are interwoven....they support, edit and elaborate EACH OTHER.

Gunners, in their rabid ideology, develop intellectual myopia when dealing with this fact.....and will stubbornly defend their irrational focus change, as Bravo does here.

But as always, the chronology of the Post will always be the undoing of folks like Bravo.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You can always tell when Touchy realizes he's been, yet again, trounced in debate. That is the point when he starts repeatedly referencing his own posts as "proof" and claims victory.

Notice folks, that intellectual cowards like Good Luck don't dare debate the issue with me....instead he tries to lie about what I wrote. All one has to do is follow the chronology of the posts to show that I refer idiots like Good Luck to previous information provided when confronted with neocon clowns who are just repeating their BS in various forms.

Good Luck with bullhorning your usual neocon claptrap, bunky!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Only a FOOL would start touting some vague references to "commentators" instead of referencing the actual articles and code of law to discuss this issue, as I did on #38 & 39.

Once more, you demonstrate that your screen name is a lie.

hey FOOL!!! how many 2nd Amendment threads have we had on this board? How many times have I, or any other 2nd Amendment supporter, posted both the quotes and cites for those 'commentators'? how many times have you ignored and avoided those very cites so you didn't have to acknowledge that you were pwned?

As you can see folks, STY is just another intellectually bankrupt neocon blowhard who stubbornly repeats his BS as if that will magically erase what I posted....which disproves his contentions, beliefs and assertions on this matter, commentators non-withstanding.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Notice folks, how Bravo throws out ANYTHING that doesn't support his assertions and beliefs. Instead, Bravo does the neocon shuffle.....touting on item of information until it's factually proven not to support his contentions, then that item is "irrelevent".

Someone clue this dumb bastard Bravo in.....the Constitution's articles and it's amendments, and all subsequent laws that pertain to the Constitution and it's amendments are interwoven....they support, edit and elaborate EACH OTHER.

Gunners, in their rabid ideology, develop intellectual myopia when dealing with this fact.....and will stubbornly defend their irrational focus change, as Bravo does here.

But as always, the chronology of the Post will always be the undoing of folks like Bravo.

You got that folks?
Folks?

Yoo-hoo, where are you?

Is this mike on??

 

[SmarterthanYou]

As you can see folks, STY is just another intellectually bankrupt neocon blowhard who stubbornly repeats his BS as if that will magically erase what I posted....which disproves his contentions, beliefs and assertions on this matter, commentators non-withstanding.

magically erase what you posted? why would I want to erase your idiotic suppositions that are completely contrary to what the founding fathers wrote and intended? I LIKE making you look stupid.

 

[Taichiliberal]

magically erase what you posted? why would I want to erase your idiotic suppositions that are completely contrary to what the founding fathers wrote and intended? I LIKE making you look stupid.

And as the chronology of the posts shows, STY can't debate the issue beyond a point, so he tries to hijack the thread for his personal slam fests.

STY can CLAIM a lot of things...but logically and factually proving it against ALL information available is something else. All STY can do at this point is a variation of the school yard "no it isn't", and repeat his general claims ad nauseum.

 

[NOVA]

For 220 years the citizens of the United States have enjoyed the rights penned in the Bills Of Rights...including the right to "keep and bear arms".....for some 220 years, up to and including today, this very minute..... and some pinhead in now gonna try to convince us we never had that right....
Is it really worth a bucket of shit, to argue with this bucket of shit, over what is plainly a right we still enjoy today as it was written in 1791?

 

[Taichiliberal]

For 220 years the citizens of the United States have enjoyed the rights penned in the Bills Of Rights...including the right to "keep and bear arms".....for some 220 years, up to and including today, this very minute..... and some pinhead in now gonna try to convince us we never had that right....
Is it really worth a bucket of shit, to argue with this bucket of shit, over what is plainly a right we still enjoy today as it was written in 1791?

All one has to do is to read the contents of the posts on this thread in their chronological order to see how dishonest and damned near delusional Bravo is in this latest blathering of his.