Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: hongomon]
    #1023567 - 11/05/02 09:50 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

all libby vs. conservative aside i think if people actually:
1. knew the constitution (mainly the bill of rights)(this includes the electoral college as well)
2. asks and demand that the politicians they elect use it to guide them through their term.

the first time they slip, then we smack them on the hand by withholding the almighty dollar....second offense no re-election or better yet, impeachment. (this would never be the case because there are too many that don't want to be bothered with politics and vote for either "D" or "R". (this has a better chance of happening locally the nationally, unfortunatly)


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineehud
Rocket Scientist
Registered: 10/23/01
Posts: 217
Loc: Middle America
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: hongomon]
    #1023880 - 11/05/02 12:36 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

we elect people into power with a democracy. which helps prevent bad people from gaining power without the backing of the american public.
If that doesn't work then you had better hold onto your guns. The second Amendment is another reason it would be hard for a person like hitler to become powerful in this country.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: ehud]
    #1023923 - 11/05/02 12:45 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

The second Amendment is another reason it would be hard for a person like hitler to become powerful in this country.



You better watch it, Alex is going to come after you with with guns a blazin' (don't worry, he shoots blanks). Some people are naive enough to think that words and wishes are all we need to keep the power hungry in check.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: ehud]
    #1023930 - 11/05/02 12:46 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

The second Amendment is another reason it would be hard for a person like hitler to become powerful in this country.

Well according to every court in the land the second amendment doesn't give individuals the right to own guns.

But apart from that, why would big business need a system of government like Hitler? They can get their own way perfectly well enough using democrat or republican puppets.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Evolving]
    #1023946 - 11/05/02 12:50 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

don't worry, he shoots blanks

Nice one evolving  :laugh:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineehud
Rocket Scientist
Registered: 10/23/01
Posts: 217
Loc: Middle America
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Xlea321]
    #1023969 - 11/05/02 12:54 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

"Well according to every court in the land the second amendment doesn't give individuals the right to own guns."

It's not about owning guns dude, it is about maintaining a militia to protect yourself. Guns are just needed to maintain this militia. America needs a way to defend itself against it's own government if needed. That is why we have the second amendment.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: ehud]
    #1023999 - 11/05/02 01:02 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

America needs a way to defend itself against it's own government if needed. That is why we have the second amendment.



There you go, making sense again.

It baffles me that all of the hate and blame America first crowd are also the ones that want to deny the American people the final means to stop an out of control government. They complain about the great Satan, but they would deny the necessary tools to the people who are most able to reign it in.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineehud
Rocket Scientist
Registered: 10/23/01
Posts: 217
Loc: Middle America
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Evolving]
    #1024041 - 11/05/02 01:15 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

five shrooms to you Bro! :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Xlea321]
    #1024078 - 11/05/02 01:26 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Well Albie... still spewing that load of crap I see. Not that I expected otherwise.

Here's a story on the 5th circuit court of appeals... a FEDERAL court I might add. And a decision which has not been overturned.

--------------------------------------------------------
Legal scholars debate landmark Second Ammendment ruling in Texas

By CHRIS NEWTON
Associated Press

LUBBOCK (AP) ? A judge?s landmark ruling that the Second Amendment gives individuals, and not just organized militias, the right to bear arms has legal scholars sparring about the constitutionality of gun-control laws.

Earlier this year, gun-control opponents inundated U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings with scholarly treatises, encouraging him to overturn an arcane law that prohibits someone from owning a gun while under a restraining order.

In response, 52 legal scholars who support gun control filed an amicus brief last week denouncing Cummings? interpretation of the Second Amendment.

?That decision and the opinion were a major shot across the bow,? said Bruce Hay, a Harvard University law professor who signed the brief. ?For the most part, federal courts have taken a hands-off approach to federal statutes regulating use of guns.

?This is the first decision to say the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing special laws concerning gun ownership. That is why his decision is so worrisome.?

The debate began unfolding last year after Timothy Joe Emerson of San Angelo was arrested and charged with violating a restraining order for allegedly brandishing a handgun in front of his wife and her daughter.

Defense attorneys argued that any law infringing on Emerson?s right to own guns was unconstitutional.

Cummings agreed, ruling in April that the right to bear arms is a protected individual right ? and not just a right belonging to an organized militia, as federal prosecutors had argued.

Prosecutors are appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but could not comment because of the judge?s gag order.

Meanwhile, scholars say the decision sets the stage for the challenge of almost any law infringing on a citizen?s right to possess a gun.

And they say the expected appellate battle is crucial for both sides.

?Growing public sentiment for a final decision on the issue is high because of school shootings and office shootings,? said David Yassky, a Brooklyn Law School professor who wrote the brief. ?The time is right for a serious decision to be made.?

The brief criticizes Cummings for misinterpreting the Second Amendment, which Yassky writes was meant to ?preserve organized, state-based militias,? and not intended to ?empower individuals or small groups of disaffected citizens to take up arms against the established order.?

Yassky said Cummings? opinion reinforces the misconception that most legal scholars believe gun-control laws are illegal.

?The vast majority argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect states? militia from the new central government created by the Constitution,? he said.

But Scott Powe, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas whom Cummings cited in his ruling, denounced Yassky?s brief, charging that only three of the co-signers were ?serious? constitutional law scholars.

?The brief is seeking to suck the meaning out of the words ?the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,?? Powe said. ?There are all sorts of things you could add or take away from that if you wanted to, but the meaning is clear. It couldn?t be more clear.?

Advocacy groups also have taken a keen interest in the case.

Jim Manown, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said most Americans support the ?traditional understanding? of the Second Amendment as the individual?s right to bear arms.

?The road to the Supreme Court is a long one, but the interest this has generated and the fact that it is being appealed will only mean the importance of this case will be heightened,? Manown said.

Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman for the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, said Yassky?s brief likely will be crucial in any debate the reaches the Supreme Court.

?We view Cummings? ruling as a renegade decision that the gun lobby is trying to hide behind,? Hwa said. ?But this time, the gun lobby won?t be able to hide. Scholars are stepping forward to make sure the reality of the Second Amendment is clear.?

One expert who does not fit snugly into either camp is Laurence Tribe, a noted liberal Harvard law professor who believes in the individual right to bear arms.

Tribe?s recently published text, American Constitutional Law, concludes that the Second Amendment assures that ?the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.?

His position has provoked gun-control advocates and he says he has received ?an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals.?

But he said he also does not agree with Cummings? ruling.

?Judge Cummings went too far with his decision, saying that Congress cannot define categories of people to whom it would be dangerous to allow to bear arms,? he said. ?The Second Amendment provides individual right, but not an unbounded right.?
------------------------------------------------------

And as I've posted before.... the Miller case you're so fond of only ruled on whether a sawed off shotgun was covered by the second ammendment, which they decided was not because a sawed off shotgun, in the courts opinion at the time, had no military value. They most definately did not rule on whether the second ammendment was an individual right or not. Several other court decisions have ruled that the word people in ammendments means it is an individual right.

I feel bad that you keep lying and saying no court in the land has ruled on the second ammendment. It is a lie and as such you should quit as it makes you look ever more foolish each time you say it.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Evolving]
    #1024080 - 11/05/02 01:26 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Back on topic...this piece is an editorial. And it uses as its source some letter that was given to Rumsfield that found itsway into the LA Times?

It's very vague.

I'd like to know more about the original article.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Evolving]
    #1024089 - 11/05/02 01:28 PM (19 years, 1 month ago)

In reply to:

(don't worry, he shoots blanks)



I certainly hope so, it would be sad indeed if his sperm is viable and he passed on those defective genes to another generation.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1026450 - 11/06/02 01:56 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

luvvie, I am not your father. There is no need to be so bitter.

:grin:



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks [Re: Xlea321]
    #1027064 - 11/06/02 06:01 AM (19 years, 1 month ago)

Bitter? Naw, just grateful that you're not. For then I'd be as foolish as you.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned in 1976
( 1 2 all )
J4S0N 2,768 29 07/13/05 08:36 AM
by exclusive58
* Israel: terrorist attack in Hadera lonestar2004 560 1 11/07/05 05:54 PM
by Unagipie
* Would a terrorist attack before november hurt or help Bush ShroomyMcPot 596 4 07/02/04 09:29 AM
by ShroomyMcPot
* non terrorist attack on the media AhronZombi 740 7 07/26/04 05:39 PM
by BleaK
* Us planning another terrorist attack on america and Dayton knows AhronZombi 594 4 10/12/04 11:55 PM
by AhronZombi
* 4938 terrorist attacks since 9/11 Luddite 298 0 05/16/06 04:59 PM
by Luddite
* a pre-Nov 2nd terrorist attack would hurt/help which candidate? MrBump 532 5 10/25/04 09:27 PM
by lonestar2004
* Summer Terrorist Attack? psyphon 360 1 05/26/04 12:34 AM
by afoaf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,587 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.