Re: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance"
Gray
<between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>
I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
private citizens owning guns.
Stop the bullets. Kill the gun.
Scout
Gray wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> <between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
>> Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>>
>
> I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> private citizens owning guns.
SCOTUS disagrees. Congress disagrees.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
><between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
>>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>>
>
>I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
>private citizens owning guns.
>
Then the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments aren't a "right of
the people" or private citizens either then?
Gray Ghost
news:4fsv15h0air0int1p...@4ax.com:
What part of "the right of the people" is to difficult for your drug addled
mind to grasp?
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
RD (The Sandman)
news:4fsv15h0air0int1p...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> <between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
>>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>>
>
> I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> private citizens owning guns.
Correct, but the RKBA that it protects does.
--
RD (The Sandman)
Thought for the day.......
Handle every stressful situation like a dog would.
If you can't eat it or hump it....Piss on it and walk away.
The Lone Weasel
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> <betweenthee...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
> >Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
Especially seeing as how Scalia bent the Constitution by denigrating
the first part of the Second Amendment.
See Marbury v Madison. See also Justice Story's Rules of
Constitutional Interpretation.
> I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> private citizens owning guns.
Exactamundo.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
No, just the rightwing yahoos on the court followed Scalia into the
turd ring of hell. DC v. Heller will be overturned.
Si a jure discedas vagus eris, et erunt omnia omnibus
incerta. If you depart from the law, you will wander without
a guide, and everything will be in a state of uncertainty to
every one. Co. Litt. 227.
Scalia bent the Constitution, violated Marbury v Madison and must pay
for his bad behavior.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
The Lone Weasel
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:33:49 -0400, Gray <savagegrayc...@friends.gsl>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> ><betweenthee...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
> >>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>
> >I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> >private citizens owning guns.
>
> Then the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments aren't a "right of
> the people" or private citizens either then?
The First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments have nothing to do with
the People of the several states owning the RIGHT TO HAVE A WELL-
REGULATED MILITIA WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF THEIR FUCKING
LIVES.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> Gray <savagegrayc...@friends.gsl> wrote innews:4fsv15h0air0int1p...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> ><betweenthee...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
> >>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>
> > I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> > private citizens owning guns.
>
> > Stop the bullets. Kill the gun.
>
> What part of "the right of the people" is to difficult for your drug addled
> mind to grasp?
What part of A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA IS NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF
A FREE STATE have you been permitted to recognize, Goosehonkey? I
don't think you recognize any part of the real purpose of the Second
Amendment and for that error you may lose your state gun rights and
gain new federal gun restrictions - thanks to the NRA & Tony "Baloney"
Scalia.
The best outcome for gun rights would be if DC v Heller is completely
overturned. If they only reverse in part Congress may retain the
power to regulate your gun possession and use and supersede your
previous liberal state gun rights.
Once they're gone you'll never see gun rights like that again.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
RD (The Sandman)
4bff-ac1a-c...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
Just what in Marbury v Madison do you think he violated. Please be
specific and not your usual self.
SaPeIsMa
"Gray" <savageg...@friends.gsl> wrote in message
news:4fsv15h0air0int1p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> <between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
>>Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>>
>
> I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> private citizens owning guns.
>
Which goes to show that you are ignorant
The Supreme Court has CLEARLY disagreed with that concept
See Heller for the most recent statemtn of that
So did Congress
See the recent law passed to allow carry in National Parks for the most
recent statement of that.
> Stop the bullets. Kill the gun.
Better to shoot the idiots and stop genetically promoting stupidity
jf...@ix.netcom.com
You did not get that quote directly from the Constitution, now, did
you? Pulled that one from one of your gun control advocacy
organizations that you admire so much, didn't you? Why don't you
quote the Second Amendment correctly or doesn't it say what you want
it to say and you have to attempt to make it say what you wish it did?
You accused me of "making shit up" and now you are doing just that.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
And they will come after your shotgun when they define it as an
assault weapon or weapon of mass destruction.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 9:36�am, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>wrote:
>> Gray wrote:
>> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
>> > <betweenthee...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
>>
>> > I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
>> > private citizens owning guns.
>>
>> SCOTUS disagrees. Congress disagrees.
>
>No, just the rightwing yahoos on the court followed Scalia into the
>turd ring of hell. DC v. Heller will be overturned.
>
Wishful thinking again like your prediction of the return of
Bellesilles.
>Si a jure discedas vagus eris, et erunt omnia omnibus
>incerta. If you depart from the law, you will wander without
>a guide, and everything will be in a state of uncertainty to
>every one. Co. Litt. 227.
>
>Scalia bent the Constitution,
No, he didn't. He interpreted the Second Amendment as it is written
and not according to a redefinition that the gun control organizations
have been trying to foist on the American people. You just didn't
like the outcome.
violated Marbury v Madison and must pay
>for his bad behavior.
No, you
tankfixer
savageg...@friends.gsl says...
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 11:12:17 -0400, "betweentheeyes"
> <between...@supportingthe2nd.org> wrote:
>
> >Interesting statement by the Obama Supreme Court nominee.
> >
>
> I'm alright with that. The second amendment has nothing to do with
> private citizens owning guns.
See Heller vs DC...
>
> Stop the bullets. Kill the gun.
stop the madness, fund the asylums
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
tankfixer
@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, thelon...@yahoo.com says...
getting pissed are you ?
control that temper now or you'lll end up in jail.
Again
tankfixer
jf...@ix.netcom.com says...
Maybe they will come after his shotgun sooner..
I mean, does the weasel own a hacksaw ?
jf...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
That's an interesting scenario. If he does, then he will have the
tools to make an illegal weapon out of it. Does having possession of
a tool give probable cause that he may perform an illegal act in
modifying that shotgun to less than the legal length?
He has performed illegal acts in the past(his DUI). Does that
make him more likely to perform other, more dangerous, illegal acts in
the future?
anonymous
women being blond and stupid. Then it became unacceptable. One
generation resisted. The next generation was legislated through
workplace environment and then the next generation simply only knew that
one doesn't even make inappropriate about women and the problem ended.
So, too, with blacks and other minorities. They bused people, put
legislation in place to enforce the end of racism and discrimination.
by three generations, like women, it was gone and now the USA have an
African American/Black president. Again, it took three generations.
For homosexuals it will work the same way in time. In Canada, when gay
marriage was possible, it became inappropriate for people in the
workplace to say inappropriate comments to or about homosexuals. Part
of this generation and certainly the next generation will not need to be
legislated as they are and continue to be sufficiently knowledgeable to
know that homosexuals are for the most part just like other citizens and
want the same things.
In some countries it may take a little longer to move forward but as the
planet and its inhabitnts struggle to survive homosexual discrimination
will diminish over time and real energy will be spend on real
problems.
JMcVie
> Many years ago it was acceptble to make jobs about women and jokes about
> women being blond and stupid. Then it became unacceptable.
Since when?
JMcVie
> To bad for you and the rest of the faggots God doesn't see it that
> way. When your in Hell paying for your sins then you'll wish you
> hadn't been such a fool.
One can only "go to hell", if you believe in that place.
> Always remember, Jesus loves you...
Jesus merely has respect for me, as I treat him right and tip him well
when he cuts-n-weeds my lawn.
>... and so do I!
Then yer a fag!
JMcVie
>>Brother Ted wrote:
>>Then yer a fag!
> Your a lier. Who said I was a fag???
Can't you read?
I said it!
And Jesus does cuts my lawn every other week... unless it keeps raining.
If you love me, then yer a fag!