Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Why? Adam Lanza executed the Sandy Hook shooting with handguns.

I thought the point of all of this outrage was because of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.

The semi-auto AR15 was found in his trunk and wasn't used in the shooting. He used the semi-auto handguns to kill people.


That has not been confirmed by officials. The last official word I heard/read was:


NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.


www.huffingtonpost.com...


From my understanding (and I have may liberal friends that say the same thing) the gun control logic is that we don't need guns that can rapid fire and kill many people at once when the fact of the matter is death by fully auto machine guns are extremely low and death by even semi-auto rifles are low as well. The bulk of death by guns are by handgun and the large majority of them are gang related and committed by criminals who get their guns illegally anyway (it makes sense because they have absolutely no respect for the law).

So why pursue the argument of banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles when they aren't even the problem?

If your goal is to save people from guns that have potential to be dangerous then logic dictates that you would want to ban ALL guns or at the very least get to the root of the problem to actually make a dent in the 'death by gun' rate.

So let's say full auto and semi-autos were completely gone tomorrow and the decrease in gun death rate is miniscule at best, would you then support a push to ban ALL guns, to get a better desired result in death rate? I know you said you supported the second amendment to bear arms but I don't know, some people change their mind in an instant when they don't get their desired result. I don't know how you would act in that situation, so I'm asking...for clarification.


so in the meantime, we should crack down on the black market sale of guns


Well theres a solution!!!

Although I disagree with universal background checks and taking a deeper look into violence in pop culture (because it is the job of the parent not the state to make sure their kids grow up right). I have never ever even ONCE heard a gun control advocate talk about actually regulating the black market. Maybe deep down liberals know its impossible to do so (prohibition and war on drugs...etc...).

But it actually makes sense to make sure bad people don't get bad things and that the good people don't collectively get their rights stripped along with the bad guys. I wonder why there aren't more logical solutions like this...oh yea its because the democratic party and the liberal media isn't spouting it.

There is even footage of the police recovering the rifle from the trunk and it wasn't fired. The AR15 was NOT used in Sandy Hook, it was handguns. That is why I pose the question to the gun control advocates who so badly want to get rid of semi-auto rifles if they also advocate getting rid of handguns.

edit on 29-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

not only is this an unapplicable question, it's been asked and answered a thousand times, didn't you bother to reveiw my post history ??
or is this merely a knee-jerk reaction to an opinion you find distasteful ??

the direct answer is ... so long as the oppressor has them, yes, it should be allowed.
do i believe any person or government has ANY need for nukes ?
NO, but that isn't what you asked.

{ps ... 'citizens' of the US already do ... who do you think paid for them, built them and has a finger on the button ?? ... i'm pretty sure it's not Obama}

now, how do you answer the same question ??
and please, in your answer, explain why you don't understand or see the difference between Offensive and Defensive weaponry ??
Nukes = Offensive
Arms = Defensive
edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Better question: should the federal government be allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.
WRONG ... the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.

Nothing in the 2nd delivers "conditions" upon the people except to maintain a well-regulated militia ... one of which the government "shall not infringe", period.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

military police actions abroad have been 'added', via the UN, they have never been properly authorized, not by Congress or the ppl paying for it.

Reagan and altimeters ????
what are you going on about ?
(altimeters ???
long before Reagan friend)

this topic isn't about military actions overseas dude, stay on topic or address someone else.

12yrs ago ??? you headed up the operation ?? yeah right.
share your fantasies elsewhere please.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

hahaha aren't you funny ??
sorry for your shakled condition but i never had any slaves so you'll need to find a new dagger to toss around, as your argument is failing on all other accounts.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Straw man? I am asking a simple and direct question and you are either sidestepping or not understanding.

You said. Arms was always meant to mean firearms. So those very recent rulings are hardly substantiating that claim. Again my request. Can you provide something to substantiate the claim? I wasn't doubting you, I was genuinely curious. Now however I am doubting.

Your quote


Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed.

Not a straw man. It's what you implied.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

No, he and others are stating that firearms have always been considered Arms ... as well as a variety of others.

Arms has never been reduced to any specific munition.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
So who is going to be the first one to tell these Korean American store owners they don't have a choice in how to protect THEIR business?

It happened in 1992 and it can happen again.


edit on 30-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by jsipprell
Immaterial to the question. We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations.
WRONG ... the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.

Nothing in the 2nd delivers "conditions" upon the people except to maintain a well-regulated militia …
one of which the government "shall not infringe", period.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo


Where did I say the 2nd delivers "conditions" upon the people? I said it applies to the people and that's not the same thing at all because I'm talking about possession of liberty not application of law.

In the context of my statement, it applies to the people in the sense that it doesn't mean there shall be no restrictions of government concerning the rights of governmental organizations. That last bit is the important target in the context of whom is the possessor of liberties.
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Why anyone would want 'bear arms', is beyond me...

I'll stick with the human kind.

A99



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Straw man? I am asking a simple and direct question and you are either sidestepping or not understanding.

You said. Arms was always meant to mean firearms. So those very recent rulings are hardly substantiating that claim. Again my request. Can you provide something to substantiate the claim? I wasn't doubting you, I was genuinely curious. Now however I am doubting.

Your quote


Arms was what firearms were called, (and still are), when the Bill of Rights was debated and signed.

Not a straw man. It's what you implied.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

No, he and others are stating that firearms have always been considered Arms ... as well as a variety of others.

Arms has never been reduced to any specific munition.


I agree, in the context of a discussion about the "natural" state of the 2nd rather than about current post-constitutional law, Arms have never been reduced to any specific munition.

Again, Arms today means exactly what it meant some 230ish years ago, Weapons, Armaments; Military weapons and equipment. The Framers never limited it to just muskets, blunderbusses, etc. (the equivalent of "firearms" at the time). The fact that we now have a significantly diverse and more lethal arms selection is an artifact of technological advancement and does nothing to change this.

The US courts, however, have placed limitations on this. Whether that should be acceptable or not is a different argument.
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 

nice try but that's not what you said.
if you think it is, that'd be the problem right there


it applies directly to the 'governing' organizations.
NOT to the people as you imply.

it restricts the authority of the government to meddle in such affairs, at all.

Liberty is not something you possess, unless we're speaking about a specific Liberty Tool, then we're talking about arms again.

In the context as it was written ... (your statement that is)

it applies to the people in the sense that it doesn't mean there shall be no restrictions of government concerning the rights of governmental organizations. That last bit is the important target in the context of whom is the possessor of liberties.
you are horribly confused in both ... then and now.

perhaps you'd care to repeat that with fewer double negatives, so we can understand your double speak a little better ??

however, as it is presented ... yes, it does mean the government IS specifically restricted from addressing this issue, unless the people choose otherwise ... as they've done previously.

just exactly whom do you think is the "possessor of liberties" ??

ps ... where is YOUR answer to the "nuke" question ?
if you expect 'exchange' of commentary, put your opinion on the table please
edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by jsipprell
 

nice try but that's not what you said.

if you think it is, that'd be the problem right there


it applies directly to the 'governing' organizations.
NOT to the people as you imply.


So now you're claiming that I merely implied this rather than outright stated it?

You're using the word "apply" in a different context than I was.



it restricts the authority of the government to meddle in such affairs, at all.

Liberty is not something you possess, unless we're speaking about a specific Liberty Tool, then we're talking about arms again.


Semantics nonsense. One possesses liberty if one is not imposed on by restrictions from some authority. If the state imposes restriction one has "lost possession" of liberty. The word possession is not terribly important if it bothers you. One could say that one "has" or "does not have" liberty depending on those conditions and the meaning is the same. The end result is what I was originally talking about, the application/possession/"having" of liberty and not the actual application of law required to make that happen.



In the context as it was written ... (your statement that is)

it applies to the people in the sense that it doesn't mean there shall be no restrictions of government concerning the rights of governmental organizations. That last bit is the important target in the context of whom is the possessor of liberties.
you are horribly confused in both … then and now.


Are you positive I'm the one confused? After all, I'm not the one trying to spin someone else's statement into something that makes it look like they don't understand a very basic constitutional principle.



perhaps you'd care to repeat that with fewer double negatives, so we can understand your double speak a little better ??


I'm not really sure how I can be much clearer. It's really quite simple. All I was saying, or trying to say, is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to protect governmental organizations from restrictions on possession of arms. Yes, it's a statement of one thing the 2nd isn't and that means a necessary explicit negative. It's not a very useful statement outside of the specific context of the original discussion.

Perhaps it makes more sense like this:


    1. Bob: Because of A, B should be allowed this, but not that or the other.
    2. Frank: A applies to C, not B thus your argument makes no sense.


The important part of Frank's statement is that A doesn't apply to B. The "A applies to C" component only exists as a juxtaposition to highlight that fact. It's immaterial that the legal definition of A is "the government shall not place restrictions upon C regarding …".

If I did not originally state this as clearly as I should have, then I'll accept the blame and apologize.



however, as it is presented … yes, it does mean the government IS specifically restricted from addressing this issue, unless the people choose otherwise ... as they've done previously.


Ok then. Now we are getting somewhere. I presume you accept the limitations that have been placed by the courts on the 2nd? I've talked to people who state that there cannot be any limitations and that any limitations previously imposed are invalid.

(See my next response to you, it's probably more constructive to just respond there instead of having to repeat yourself and/or backtrack.)



just exactly whom do you think is the "possessor of liberties" ??






ps ... where is YOUR answer to the "nuke" question ?
if you expect 'exchange' of commentary, put your opinion on the table please
edit on 30-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt


As stated in a response to someone else a bit earlier in the thread, I am not intransigent on the issue. Obviously we cannot let private people possess nuclear weapons, that would be insane (anyone who disagrees I would love to hear from). That would seem to suggest there must be at least some limitations. I can't say yet, with confidence, exactly where I believe those limitations should be because I can see things from many different angles at once. That's one reason I'm asking so many questions.
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: just being helpful



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by Honor93

the 2nd doesn't come with conditions


So you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

not only is this an unapplicable question, it's been asked and answered a thousand times, didn't you bother to reveiw my post history ??
or is this merely a knee-jerk reaction to an opinion you find distasteful ??


Sorry, I missed this. I did not read your post history. I'm engaged with multiple people on this thread at different levels of dialog, and it's constantly changing, so you'll pardon me for not being as informed about your position as you would like.

In general, I've essentially dropped the nukes component to something/anything less extreme as it's obvious that the overpowering nature of nukes serves to distract from conversation. My interest is in exploring the boundaries (or lack-there-of) on limitations of the 2nd rather than extremes in armaments.



now, how do you answer the same question ??
and please, in your answer, explain why you don't understand or see the difference between Offensive and Defensive weaponry ??
Nukes = Offensive
Arms = Defensive


Arms consists of both offensive and defensive weapons, regardless of destructive capability.

So is it your position then that the 2nd has a limitation placed on it to apply only to "defensive" weapons? If so, who makes that determination? What exactly delineates an "Offensive" vs a "Defensive" weapon seeing as a great number of them can be used in both capacities (in fact, some might say all can be used defensively because strong offensive capability acts as a deterrent)?
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


How did you get this: “So that means that at this point your position is "Yes, there should be limitations on the second amendment but I refuse to elucidate on the exact nature of said limitations."?

From this: “You probably should make an assertion of where you “stand” regarding the second amendment before expecting any feedback. Failing to make your own position known while shrilly demanding answers from others is disingenuous and I, for one, do not feel beholden to respond further to them.”

If that wasn’t an attempt to put words in my mouth, it was a reasonably good facsimile of it. Its no wonder that you can’t read the simple words in the second amendment and understand its meaning.

You also said: “Perhaps I am interested in exploring the boundaries of the issue in hopes of having a robust and maximally cogent opinion?”

Okay, so here’s my robust and cogent opinion: there are already thousands of federal, State and local laws on the books limiting gun ownership. That’s what lawyers do: they take a perfectly understandable phrase and fracture it into thousands of tiny pieces until it means thousands of different things to thousands of different people in thousands of different places.

Criminals, OTOH, prefer the KISS method. They don’t give two hoots about legal double speak. If you are unarmed and one of them comes for you, when seconds make the difference between you living or dying the police are minutes away. They’ll come and mop up the mess afterwards, but you’ll be deader than a hammer. And that’s your decision to make, its not a word game.

Swat. OTOH, may simply get the street numbers wrong and then you’re probably SOL either way since they wear Kevlar undies because they don’t trust the inhabitants not to shoot back. That's the boundaries, they’re looking out for number one which makes you number two on their serve and protect list.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


I am honestly having a hard time believing that any responsible 2nd amendment backer is in favor of no background checks, it sounds as if you are perfectly willing to place firearms in the hands of every violent felon and mentally ill individual in the US. Believe it or not, that is a ridiculous concept in the eyes of many that would back your agenda otherwise
then you would be presenting a facetious argument to discount the obvious ... background checks do NOT work.

how many background checks have KEPT guns out of the hands of those who couldn't pass one ??

sure, they PROTECT the gun dealers from selling to criminals, but they do not stop or prevent any one who wants one from getting them.
and that's the only fact that counts.


I fully understand that, if I want to buy drugs, I can, whether they are illegal or not. They are a step to keep guns out of the hands of one, who in a fit of anger, decides to buy one, especially the mentally ill. We will never keep guns out of the hands of those that truly desire to have one. I realize for responsible gun owners, that this is a pain in the butt, but it does give others a sense, albeit false, of security and rational thought. It is a compromise that a majority of the country wants, and the 2nd Backers that keep fighting it, look more and more irrational to some that might fully support the rest of your agenda.

With a quick check, the FBI indicates that 78,211 denials were issued in 2011.


You do realize, that an unpaid speeding ticket from another state can prevent you from getting approval? Do you ever speed when you drive? Would you consider yourself mentally ill if so? Logic here?

According to the man who sells guns at the hardware store down the street, (Texas), there is 25% denial rate when he runs a background check. He says half the time, there is no reason for the flagging, and when people come back to try again, there is suddenly no problem. So with that information, I would like to see the numbers behind all of those denials, the REAL number of valid denials.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by jsipprell
 


How did you get this: “So that means that at this point your position is "Yes, there should be limitations on the second amendment but I refuse to elucidate on the exact nature of said limitations."?

From this: “You probably should make an assertion of where you “stand” regarding the second amendment before expecting any feedback. Failing to make your own position known while shrilly demanding answers from others is disingenuous and I, for one, do not feel beholden to respond further to them.”

If that wasn’t an attempt to put words in my mouth, it was a reasonably good facsimile of it. Its no wonder that you can’t read the simple words in the second amendment and understand its meaning.


You appear not to have quoted my good faith statement about possibly getting previous responses mixed up but rather feign confusion over the easily explainable. Interesting.

Regardless, you assert I am putting words in your mouth but you won't tell me what needs to be corrected? Is it a secret? Am I not permitted to know? Instead you prefer to retreat to argumentum ad hominem.

So then, starting from a position of zero information, a very simple question: Do you believe there should be any limitations on the second amendment?



You also said: “Perhaps I am interested in exploring the boundaries of the issue in hopes of having a robust and maximally cogent opinion?”

Okay, so here’s my robust and cogent opinion: there are already thousands of federal, State and local laws on the books limiting gun ownership. That’s what lawyers do: they take a perfectly understandable phrase and fracture it into thousands of tiny pieces until it means thousands of different things to thousands of different people in thousands of different places.

Criminals, OTOH, prefer the KISS method. They don’t give two hoots about legal double speak. If you are unarmed and one of them comes for you, when seconds make the difference between you living or dying the police are minutes away. They’ll come and mop up the mess afterwards, but you’ll be deader than a hammer. And that’s your decision to make, its not a word game.

Swat. OTOH, may simply get the street numbers wrong and then you’re probably SOL either way since they wear Kevlar undies because they don’t trust the inhabitants not to shoot back. That's the boundaries, they’re looking out for number one which makes you number two on their serve and protect list.


I see. In other news, the sky is also blue and good people suffer and die for bad reasons too often. (i.e. That contained no information pertinent to the questions at hand other than a completely unsurprising "I support the second" generality.)

I'll repeat myself, just so you have another opportunity to not answer a question for me:

Do you believe there should be any limitations on the second amendment?
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


LOL @ your good faith versus my feigned confusion.

This is so stupid. It doesn’t matter what I beeeleeeeve, it doesn’t matter what you beeeeleeeeve, thousands of laws limiting the second amendment already exist and more are being written as we speak. I didn’t write them, I didn’t get to vote on them and I can’t change them.

But if you’re paying the slightest amount of attention, all those laws aren’t stopping crime. Matter of fact, gun free zones and areas with the strictest gun restrictions are where the lion’s share of violent crimes occur. If you can't extrapolate from there I can’t help you. Nobody can.


edit on 30-1-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by jsipprell
 


This is so stupid. It doesn’t matter what I beeeleeeeve, it doesn’t matter what you beeeeleeeeve, thousands of laws limiting the second amendment already exist and more are being written as we speak. I didn’t write them, I didn’t get to vote on them and I can’t change them.


Easy there sparky, there's no need to succumb to nihilism.


But okay, if you don't want to define the parameters of your position, I'll stop asking.

We have a judicial review process. I'm not suggesting it's speedy, that it solves all problems and that it's never wrong. But at least it's there. There is relatively little precedent at the SCOTUS level on the 2nd, it's only recently started examining some issues in a bit of depth. That means that from a jurisprudence perspective, it's a swamp.

Legislation that is clearly out of touch with Columbia v. Heller will slowly get sorted out, but CvH did pretty clearly state that certain forms of restriction are acceptable. And that's just the way it is going to be for a good long while. I'm not making a positive or negative statement about the ultimate constitutionality of the court's action, I'm just acknowledging that our system is such that they are the ultimate arbiters (sans a new amendment).

The court (somewhat) taking on integration of the supremacy clause in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 will definitely cause some lower courts to fall in line on some issues, but of course it was very narrow so there will still need to be a numerous challenges before a suitable set of top-level precedents exists. Strong states rights proponents might love the patchwork though. *shrug*

The republic will sort it out. Slowly. Painfully. Just like always.

And there will be those who just hate it. Just like always.



But if you’re paying the slightest amount of attention, all those laws aren’t stopping crime. Matter of fact, gun free zones and areas with the strictest gun restrictions are where the lion’s share of violent crimes occur. If you can't extrapolate from there I can’t help you. Nobody can.


Personally (see here I am taking a stance), I don't think either gun laws or gun ownership really contribute to large scale crime rates in a meaningful way. If the '94 assault weapons ban had been renewed and that somehow had prevented each and every one of the past few years of spree/mass murders there would be absolutely no statistical change in crime rate. A few less dead people, which is great, but nothing else noticeable (less ATS posts??).

If something does end up happening at the federal legislative level (which I rather doubt in the current political climate), it's going to be solely for the purpose of comforting families with dead kids, not for crime rate reduction.

Most murders are committed by people who know the victim, for various personal reasons. Not by criminals breaking into houses or robbing stores. Increased gun ownership isn't going to do anything significant there. Beyond that, I don't think you can force criminals to stop being criminals with an armed public unless everyone is really well trained. I could be wrong, but does it matter? Just because gun ownership is permitted doesn't mean everyone goes out and gets a gun.
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And had you read Heller you would have noticed the court declared that "arms" in the 2A referred to firearms. And it doesn't matter if the rulings were recent or not, for the simple fact that our 2nd Amendment rights were not challenged for some 200 years. Now they have been attacked and the court has ruled.


Interesting. So, let me see if I understand your assertion.

By way of analogy, imagine the following:

Given: A special amendment exists which was debated and signed about the same time as the bill of rights:

Amendment #0: Being necessary for the purposes of pleasant aesthetics, the rights of proprietors, tradesmen and their apprentices, during normal hours involving the execution of commercial enterprise, to wear the color black shall not be infringed.

229 years later, SCOTUS finally gets around to this in the case of Monkey v. Chimp in 2008. The question at hand is "what exact times does the amendment refer to?" After researching both historical records, original state law, current state law and relevant legal documents the court hands down a majority opinion that states, in summary:

1. The zeroth amendment protects the rights of employers and employees to wear black clothing during normal working hours.

2. Because, at the time of drafting, the concept of a standard 40 hour, Monday through Friday work week did not yet exist there is an open question regarding the amendment's application to the modern concept of the work week. The Court finds that the intention of the zeroth amendment was never to extend to working hours outside an established norm. Simply because the modern concept of working hours is different and more firmly established, this basic underlying premise does not change. Thus, The Court finds that the zeroth amendment only provides protection during standard 9-5 M-F work week hours. Persons involved in commercial business operating outside the standard modern 40 hour work week are thus not necessarily included in the protections stipulated by the zeroth amendment.

3. Additionally, The Court finds that protections against undue restraint on color coordination do not necessarily apply during lunch periods as the norm for lunches usually involves non-commercial activity.

Does this then mean that Amendment #0 now retroactively has always referred to a 9-5, excluding lunch, M-F week?
edit on 30-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


You're using the word "apply" in a different context than I was.
hardly.
your commentary was previously quoted but here it is again for clarification ...

We're talking about the second amendment which applies to citizens not to governing organizations

the word "applies" has only one context in your sentence.
so, which context did you think you meant ?

now, just so we're clear ... my response states ...

the entirety of the Constitution and the BoR applies to the RESTRICTIONS of government concerning the RIGHTs OF THE PEOPLE ... not the other way around.
using the exact same word and the same context as your original statement.

if you have nothing more valuable to contribute than a grammar issue, please find an appropriate thread.

semantic nonsense ???
which part ... Liberty as a possession or Liberty as an exercise of freedom ?

you'd be mistaken.
Liberty isn't something that is provided, it's earned.

no, if the state imposses restrictions, it does nothing to remove Liberty ... where in the world did you get that idea ?

the word 'possession' doesn't bother me, however, it doesn't apply to Liberty, at all.

no law is required to apply/possess/have or exercise Liberty.
Liberty is not a 'thing' to be owned.
Liberty is not an 'emotion' to be felt
Liberty is not available based on the authority of someone else.

Liberty is a state of being, a expression of action and a belief ... one of which NO LAW can remove.

apparently you are if you believe/promote Liberty as any form of 'possession'.

clearly, you don't understand BASIC Constitutional principle ... until you do, you might want to brush up a bit.

and this, is where you fail miserably ...

is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to protect governmental organizations from restrictions on possession of arms.
your persistent double negatives make as much sense now as they did then.
there is nothing in the 2nd that protects government organizations, at all.

nope, you weren't clear then and it isn't improving.

while i do follow the implications of Bob & Frank's commentary, even they are discussing 2 different aspects of the same topic.

in the context of this subject matter ... Frank's statement is more correct than Bob's.
and they are not saying the same thing.

Bob seeks permission. (should be allowed)
Frank states firmly that permission doesn't apply.

regarding your strike-out commentary ... does that mean that you take it back or realize your error ?

{to properly respond to that statement - restrictions placed by the people (arms owners) are to be honored, restrictions placed by the government are not applicable}

so, why did you "..." that single question ?
you are the one who chose the phrase "possessor of liberties" ... not i ... please clarify.

whom do you think is the "possessor of liberties" ??

if you are not intransigent on the issue, then you don't understand the issue at hand. (regardless of what you say)

and, to top if off, you've been asked repeatedly where you DO stand ... and intransigent means you'd be unwavering, un-willing to compromise ... so again, what are your suggestions ?


Obviously we cannot let private people possess nuclear weapons
ummmm, they already DO ... where have you been for the last 50yrs or so ??

nuclear arms are not defensive by any stretch of the imagination.
they are even deemed MAD ... mutually assured destruction ... so, they don't even apply to this conversation, period.

questions are welcome ... double-speak we get enough of from our 'representatives' ... are you one of them ??





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join