It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The beezzer's Court The 2nd Amendment The Trial

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

If this is the appropriate time for a question, Your Fuzziness? Is the Prosecution calling for a complete elimination of an "arms" amendment, the 2nd, or are they simply calling for it to be modified a little? I'd like to know what the goal is and whether they need 51% of the argument, or beyond a reasonable doubt, or somewhere in between.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

It isn't mandatory that you read and contribute to every thread...



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

It isn't mandatory that you read and contribute to every thread...




It isn't mandatory that you reply to every post either.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
(Notes the need for better security in the form of door guards for the next proceeding)

The defense would like to note for the record that the observers in the gallery are important to the free movement of the justice system .... but counter-productive if present just to throw things at the front of the room occasionally.

Or to put it another way during proceedings? Spectators are best seen and not heard.


(I must be getting ornery in my old age,... It's all these deadbeat clients who don't pay)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


I was not attempting to evade your questions. As stated in another response, there is no reliable independant media that I am aware of up here and I do not watch tv so any information I receive is through word of mouth when it comes to issues of that nature. Like I said, I am not a nationalist, as we actually have less freedom up here to change things than you guys do and the cops are beyond brutal at times. Couple that with the fact that we gave up our right to bear arms long ago, I would say that Canada is already farther down the curve to tyranny than you guys are. I will say, however, that Stephen Harper seems to be mirroring your policies up here, which means what flies in the US, goes the same for us, so if you lose the rest of your rights, guess what that means for me. I know you're probably thinking that I'm a defeatist, but I can't exactly go out and protest as 1)I am deaf and 2)The only jobs that I can get hired for do not pay very much and they won't promote me because they view my hearing as a safety risk, which means travelling is out of the question, so I am relegated to do all of my activism on the computer. Also, being that the "sheepish masses" are even more deluded up here than they seem to be down there, I don't see what good it would do getting myself put on the black list when all I'm doing is beating my head against a brick wall, so I use my skills where I feel they are needed, regardless of nationality. Such is the awesomeness of the interwebz. It allows me to independantly research and become active on issues throughout the world with people throughout the world. If you could explain to me what exactly is going on with the Idle No More resistance, I would be very appreciative and maybe then I can tell you what I think about it. (Maybe preferably in a U2U so thread derailing can be kept to a minimum)
edit on 14/1/2013 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The 2nd is an antiquated amendment that shouldn't be observed today.
My argument is the 2nd is redundant and needs to be scrapped.

First one is mine, second one is our lead.

Your honor, we are at a disadvantage as Iknowstuff and myself are at different ends of the Earth. The time for me is 10am and his time is 12am. I will be presenting our opening argument after the defense gets (all) their opening speeches in. My point being that we might have to wait awhile between cross examinations/giving of our arguments.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Sorry, I have a compulsion to respond to hypocrites and people that respond in threads where their opinion is wanted, if they give their opinion about the thread subject matter. You should know better Mr. Silver-Border...

edit on 14-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
For the record, while awaiting clarification from His Fuzzyness on points raised last page...... The Defense has no objections to additional Jurors being seated during this narrow window before the formal cases have begun. I can hold my opening for another few moments while that matter is addressed.

The opening statement is subject to ruling as noted before anyway...so if more would like to participate before it's properly rolling? No harsh words from our table.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Adieu. It's pretty obvious that you guys are not up for a serious debate so I shall take my words elsewhere. Good luck with your little charade.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by blupblup
 


Sorry, I have a compulsion to respond to hypocrites



Uh huh.... and I'm a hypocrite how?

Don't see anything hypocritical in my post, but perhaps I'm not as learned as you, eh?



and people that respond in threads where their opinion is wanted,



So my opinion is or isn't wanted, I'm confused?




if they give their opinion about the thread subject matter. You should know better Mr. Silver-Border...
[



So my "border" is being used as a stick to beat me with?

I'll post in any thread I wish, thanks very much


edit on 14/1/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
** Closed - pending staff review **



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join