USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I see you're finally realizing that Stone only uses circular logic and presents nothing in the way of proof; but he does think his opinion is proof.
Question for our gun enthusiast friends.
- Thread starter StoneByStone
- Start date
I see you're finally realizing that Stone only uses circular logic and presents nothing in the way of proof; but he does think his opinion is proof.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
If another countries population chooses to put with restrictions on their rights, that's bad on them and does not mean we will put up with something similar.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Indeed they are.
Most of the time, reading their "ideas" is better then going to a comedy show.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
I see you're finally realizing that Stone only uses circular logic and presents nothing in the way of proof; but he does think his opinion is proof.
yep. a real clown.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
That thought did pop into my mind as I typed that response out.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Plus they're a good distraction, when you're bored.
That they are! Gotta embrace it for what it is
I didn't ask a question about free speech. You always blame others when you fuck up.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Just like Stop Signs don't MAKE anyone stop.
That was originally. In 1925 the SC made free speech applicable to the states and later incorporated the other rights in the 1st Amendments.
Many state laws have been declared unconstitutional because they violated the free speech provision of the 1st (not because they violated the state constitution or state laws). All easily verified.
But how the Constitution's provisions are interpreted vary by time and individual interpretation.
For example, the 4th says government cannot conduct an "unreasonable" search without a warrant. What is a reasonable search government can conduct without a warrant and who makes that decision?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Correct. I've ran through quite a few of those signs myself (accidentally in most cases, but at one odd intersection I always do so as long as no cars or cops are around, just because of how the intersection is).
Additionally, people still murder, rape, steal, assault, lie in court, molest children, etc... so you're correct that no sign/law/etc. MAKES anyone stop doing particular things.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
The Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States. The States do not have to comply with such a ruling.
Into the Night
Verified User
The government cannot conduct a search at all without a warrant. Yes...this means the TSA is unconstitutional. It is also ineffective.
Of course it can. The plain English words of the Constitution say it cannot conduct an unreasonable search without a warrant meaning if it is reasonable no warrant is necessary.
See why the plain language of the Constitution can mean different things to different people? You completely ignore the reasonable exception in the plain language of the Constitution although you claim it is not subject to interpretation.
The TSA is a completely different animal. Based on your definition the border patrol must have a warrant to search vehicles coming into the U. S. that might be carrying contraband.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The people and the Courts; because that's why the US has a system set in place, to challenge such.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Because; unlike liberals, the majority of the US are able to think for themselves.
Exactly, and those able to think for themselves and read the Constitution know much of it is vague and subject to interpretation. Even those men writing the document had different interpretations of its meaning.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
No it's not vague, except for liberals who want it to say what they want it to say.
They may not have initially agreed on what they wanted; but they came together and were able to unite on what they signed.
OK. Then you answer the hypothetical. The 4th says there shall be no unreasonable searches without a warrant. What is a reasonable search that does not require a warrant. And where do we find those "clear" examples.
I think conservatives also give it a broad interpretation to give government the power they want it to have. For example, "naturalization" has always meant process of becoming a citizen. But now it is being interpreted to include immigration control which clearly was not contained in that provision or early naturalization laws. I think that is because the right wants to make sure government has control over immigration and are willing to accept a liberal interpretation of governments power to achieve that control.
I am not arguing against immigration laws, just pointing out the Constitution does not give Congress that power (unless we stretch the meaning of naturalization).