Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Right to Bear Arms.

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by slugger9787
 

A kid in high school could understand this.


I'm quite baffled at this statement (as well as this entire post), as this thread has made only one thing clear, you do not understand this at all.

I won't even begin to entertain you with an intellectual reply, as it would be an absolute waste of time, but if you're not trolling...



Peace.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
 


Yeah, you added nothing to this conversation, and i'm trolling? Hahaha rigghhhttt.

Let's say someone wants to take it up with the Supreme Court and Overturn this decision of controlling guns. The Supreme court would look at their translation of the second amendment. A translation is what exactly? Would I be wrong to say that they changed it?? I doubt it. And unless you dont read that OFFICIAL TRANSLATION, you won't get far in saying the terms "militia" and "It's Unconstitutional", in a supreme court hearing. The Judge, is part of the cabinet, in which the president resides. He can then veto the previously signed orders for gun control. But noooo, You think you can skip the system made by your forefathers your'e trying to protect? Have fun sitting behind your screens, while your guns, as we speak, get CONSTITUTIONALLY taken away. If it's unconstitutional, and people in the military are supposed to protect the constitution, as are the people, why is nothing being done? Hmmm, Should I go into detail about the words "and" and "the", in case articles blow your mind?

Plain and Straightforward in the post. Not. Unconstitutional. Maybe in 200 year ago land. Maybe even 30 years ago. But since bushes NWO, not anymore.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Go online, and look how all of congress agreed. Lawl. I should not even be defendin myself, when your trying to defend your guns being taken away! Here's reality, they are controlling your guns. Get. Over. It.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 





Let's say someone wants to take it up with the Supreme Court and Overturn this decision of controlling guns. The Supreme court would look at their translation of the second amendment. A translation is what exactly? Would I be wrong to say that they changed it?? I doubt it. And unless you dont read that OFFICIAL TRANSLATION, you won't get far in saying the terms "militia" and "It's Unconstitutional", in a supreme court hearing. The Judge, is part of the cabinet, in which the president resides. He can then veto the previously signed orders for gun control. But noooo, You think you can skip the system made by your forefathers your'e trying to protect? Have fun sitting behind your screens, while your guns, as we speak, get CONSTITUTIONALLY taken away. If it's unconstitutional, and people in the military are supposed to protect the constitution, as are the people, why is nothing being done?


The Judges on the Supreme Court are not part of the presidents cabinet.
Neither are the senators and represenatives.
There are three branches of government:
Executive The president
Legislative The House of Represenatives and the Senate (Congress)
Judicial- Supreme court judges.

These are the three branches of government which
provide checks and balances on each other.
I am certain that you have been a paralegal for a few years, maybe more, and my certainty rests solidly on your total ineptitude and ignorance of and about reality



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.


The attorney General isn't in the cabinet? Hmm. Whoops must have left that part out when they elected him?
What exactly are you trying to do. Bash me? or Debate?


the attorney general or attorney-general is the main legal advisor to the government


I mean, you just showed ridiculous you sounded when you even said that the branches of government that check off of each other include the judicial branch. Supreme Court is a part of the judicial branch. Using deductive reasoning, you can see that IF


The executive branch executes the law


That the president would have to, HAVE TO, look at the judicial branches, supreme court ruling on the official translation.

Again, what does your reply have anything to do with the constitutionality of it. Your telling us what is taught in high schools. Please elaborate on how im ignorant to reality, when at least I can properly answer questions.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


the attorney general is an ATTORNEY he enforces the laws.
Attorney general is a member of the executive (Presidential) branch.
This position is appointed by the president.

the judicial branch of government is the supreme court.
it consists of nine JUDGES.

you are a PARALEGAL, YOU know the difference between a JUDGE and an ATTORNEY.
or is that a myth?

The legislative branch consists of 100 SENATORS
and @455 REPRESENATIVES



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
The attorney General isn't in the cabinet? Hmm. Whoops must have left that part out when they elected him?
What exactly are you trying to do. Bash me? or Debate?


As already pointed out.....I must have missed this on the ballot. When did we elect the Attorney General? If you are a paralegal, I would hope I never run into you in search of counsel because you seriously have no clue what you are talking about.



the attorney general or attorney-general is the main legal advisor to the government


I mean, you just showed ridiculous you sounded when you even said that the branches of government that check off of each other include the judicial branch. Supreme Court is a part of the judicial branch. Using deductive reasoning, you can see that IF


The executive branch executes the law


That the president would have to, HAVE TO, look at the judicial branches, supreme court ruling on the official translation.

Again, what does your reply have anything to do with the constitutionality of it. Your telling us what is taught in high schools. Please elaborate on how im ignorant to reality, when at least I can properly answer questions.



Considering that the AG is part of the Executive and not the Judicial and that presidents current and pass have relied upon AG counsel to execute the law and have been sorely wrong, I am not really sure where you are going with this.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
Let's say someone wants to take it up with the Supreme Court and Overturn this decision of controlling guns.


Overturn what decisions? You mean like Heller? McDonald?


The Supreme court would look at their translation of the second amendment. A translation is what exactly? Would I be wrong to say that they changed it?? I doubt it. And unless you dont read that OFFICIAL TRANSLATION, you won't get far in saying the terms "militia" and "It's Unconstitutional", in a supreme court hearing.


What in the good Sam damnation are you even talking about here?!


The Judge, is part of the cabinet, in which the president resides.


Okay. My earlier suspicions are confirmed right here. You sir, have no idea on how the separation of powers in the Federal Government reside. I gave up too much time arguing with a flat out idiot unwilling to even learn let alone claiming to be a paralegal that thinks judges are in the Executive (or cabinet).

Tell you what, come back when you actually can realize you just have been speaking from your rear-end (either for giggles or because you really are that stupid), and then we can have an adult conversation.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Blah, blah, blah. I'm not a paralegal, but have college grad experience. Regardless, Is it constitutional or not? That was the MAIN premise of this. If you don't have anything to do beside try to dodge bullets and have a gun fight with me(metaphorical, course), then go play with your guns on another thread.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Sigh. No. You're so right master! Don't whip me anymore!


Pfffft.

You don't know your stuff. I'm sorry. But you don't.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Blah, blah, blah. I'm not a paralegal, but have college grad experience. Regardless, Is it constitutional or not? That was the MAIN premise of this. If you don't have anything to do beside try to dodge bullets and have a gun fight with me(metaphorical, course), then go play with your guns on another thread.


My mistake, you made some odd reference here:

"Btw, yes i do understand the paralegal department, not civics, lawl." What ever that means. So if you are not a paralegal (which by the above quote, you don't even have a clue what that means in the context you responded to), I am sorry and can actually own up to something I misstated.

On your question, is what constitutional? What is your question? I am not dodging anything so you can blah blah blah me all you want.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Absolutely, no one even answered the question of, is it constitutional or not. Decided to call me Ignorant(like they know what the word means), or stupid.


Shows how smart you guys are! Go waste your time, as you feel you are doing, on a different thread. And stop wasting your time. I can't tell a wall, that it's a color, because it knows only walls.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You asked if I understand American Civics, I said I understand Paralegal, not civics. And the question pretty obvious. It's the only thing with a question mark in the thing you quoted. I'm not gonna give you this one. Dig, buddy, you can do it. Think, what thread are we on, and what is my OP.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythfury
 


And what is the question? The Executive taking unilateral measures to infringe upon that Right? Then I would say it was unconstitutional. I am confused at what your question is as you cannot even present it even after I just asked you.....what are you asking is constitutional or not?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
So in another thread, you use my examples like you know them? And state my case that you are denying here? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! I wish nothing but a happy life for you, because then you wouldn't notice how sad that is.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
So in another thread, you use my examples like you know them? And state my case that you are denying here? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! I wish nothing but a happy life for you, because then you wouldn't notice how sad that is.


Care to elaborate? What am I denying?!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Imma have to give it to you.

The answer is yes. They changed the meaning, which unilateral would have been a better way of saying it in my case, to make it constitutional, amending the 2nd amendment. SO is it constitutional, by the way you just stated above? If it is, Then what was the point of arguing. I'm pretty sure like 5th line in my OP said it was constitutional. I never said it was right, or I agreed with it. But it is constitutional! And you debated back and forth to prove what? Tell me things I know, and then try to loop-hole it with nonsense?

Question is Is it constitutional, and since you won't even try, the answer is yes. You couldn't have said it more clearer in your most previous message. Okay? Go along with your life. Please.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mythfury
Imma have to give it to you.
Likewise because the below....says nothing. You answered your own question without ever actually stating what that question is. Is what Constitutional?


They changed the meaning, which unilateral would have been a better way of saying it in my case, to make it constitutional, amending the 2nd amendment.


Round and round......how was the 2nd Amendment amended? It has been interpreted, but not amended. I know this seems like a semantic game, but really it is important.


Question is Is it constitutional, and since you won't even try, the answer is yes. You couldn't have said it more clearer in your most previous message. Okay? Go along with your life. Please.


Alright last time I ask before I just let it go.....is what unconstitutional?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


That it's constitutional? You have denied it this entire time with your contradicting posts!

Domo origato, senor. Im off.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join