Home | Community | Message Board


Cannabis Seeds UK
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Scales, Toilet Paper

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1755899 - 07/28/03 01:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

well, I know this isn't a solid reference or anything, but my brother in law used to be a diamond retailer, and he said everything came from debeers unless it is illegally traded on the black market.




You're right. It's not even a remotely solid reference. I believe you'll find the Russians have a large number of diamond mines as well, not owned by DeBeers.


Quote:

I also saw some shit on 20/20 where they went to the debeers headquarters which is underneath some european city, and there is supposedly enough diamonds sitting in their vaults that if they circulated all of them, the value of diamonds would go through the floor.



I've seen that as well, and the Russians supposedly do the same.


Quote:

there was also a special on PBS about the african black market for diamonds and it showed young africans risking their lives in dangerous mines and underwater digging where a high % of them drowned. it also showed gang warfare over territrory and business transactions involving diamonds...


Seen it.


Quote:

and all so some american bitch can feel special on her wedding day..



Ah.... so ONLY American women wear diamonds? Funny but I could swear diamonds are valued in many parts of the world.

Your prejudice is showing.


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


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: silversoul7]
    #1755903 - 07/28/03 01:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Similar does NOT equal the same as.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1755910 - 07/28/03 01:20 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

So? At least it was relevant to the posts I was quoting.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: silversoul7]
    #1755929 - 07/28/03 01:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
So? At least it was relevant to the posts I was quoting.



Really? Well maybe to you. But not I would think to most.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1756186 - 07/28/03 02:49 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Then it's a good thing that the majority of the government, the majority of the courts, the majority of legal scholars, those who actually wrote the bill of rights, and the majority of the citizens of the United States see it differently.

Actually they don't. As the supreme court has made clear the second amendment applies to well-regulated militias only. Which is why the NRA are too frightened to bring a legal case on the basis of their interpretation of the second amendment. They know perfectly well they would lose.


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


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1756266 - 07/28/03 03:19 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Alpo, you know that's an out and out lie.
There has been one second amendment case that has reached the supreme court.

In it, US v. Miller, the court decided that sawed off shotguns are not covered by the second amendment as (in their view) that type of weapon had no use in the military. I pasted it before, I'd be glad to do so again.

Why you feel the need to be dishonest about such an easily checkable fact, amazes me.


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


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1756284 - 07/28/03 03:24 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Here it is for you yet another time.....





In United States v. Miller,\4\ the Court sustained a statute
requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``[w]ith obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness
of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''\5\ The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' ' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.'
'\6\ Therefore, ``n the absence
of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun
having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.''\7\





So there you go Alpo, a ruling on both the second amendment, and on the composition of the militia.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1756308 - 07/28/03 03:30 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Im curious as to who believes welfare is "right"..


Is welfare right?
yes
no
depends...




Votes accepted from (12/31/69 07:00 PM) to (No end specified)
View the results of this poll



--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1756309 - 07/28/03 03:30 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I still don't see how that proves your point.
It just reiterates what militias are composed of (citizens).
It could be interpreted as civilians owning guns,but only when taking part in a militia. It still isn't clear about the private use of guns in a non militia setting.
(Edit: I misread that, I meant the citing of the Constitution and Federalist papers,not the court ruling.)


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by grandmasterfat (07/28/03 03:33 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1756315 - 07/28/03 03:33 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Background:
The U.S. Supreme Court, and every federal appeals court in the country, except one, has consistently rejected the gun lobby's ill-founded attempt to read the militia clause out of the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court concluded more than 60 years ago, in United States v. Miller (1939), the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was 'to assure the continuation of and render possible the effectiveness' of the state militia, and it 'must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'

For decades, the NRA and others opposed to common-sense gun laws have waged a campaign of misinformation, claiming that their "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment invalidates many gun control measures. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger called the gun lobby's deception "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."



A Sampling of Court Decisions that Support the Militia Interpretation of the Second Amendment

U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)


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

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Hinostroza, 297 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2002)
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis,, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom.
Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943)


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

U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971)


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

STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/press/related_docs/052301.asp


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


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1756331 - 07/28/03 03:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You've got to be shitting me.

The arguement of some is that because of the word militia in the second amendment, there is no right for civilians to own weapons. According to the supreme court, civilians ARE the militia.






The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' ' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.'





How can it be any plainer than that?


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,107
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 minutes, 48 seconds
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1756333 - 07/28/03 03:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Do you believe flag burning is "speech".


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1756354 - 07/28/03 03:45 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I never said civilians weren't the militia.



--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1757654 - 07/28/03 11:27 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

alex... do you really think that the founders thought it so important to clarify the right of the army to have weapons that they added a constitutional amendment about it?

do you really think the second amendment in the bill of RIGHTS refers to the right of soldiers to carry arms?

does that not seem absurd to you?


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1758639 - 07/29/03 05:32 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Alpo, I pasted the Supreme Courts decision. This is from the written decision in US v. Miller. Here it is yet again. Then tell me where in this, you see the Court saying the 2nd is not an individual right.....

The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' ' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.''

So while I can say you know how to use the cut and paste feature, I can say with equal confidence that you don't seem to do as well with reading.

If you wish to play the cut and paste from an anti-gun website, we can all resort to posting a whole bunch of cases like you just did. It's what's inside them that counts.

When you start off the list with one so obviously false, and then follow it up with a list filled with who knows what, and who knows what the final outcomes of the appeals are, you've only wasted space.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: ]
    #1758726 - 07/29/03 06:57 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

mushmaster writes:

do you really think that the founders thought it so important to clarify the right of the army to have weapons that they added a constitutional amendment about it?

Stop being logical, dammit!

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,107
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 minutes, 48 seconds
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Phred]
    #1758739 - 07/29/03 07:04 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The constitution doesn't say the army can have bullets though.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: ]
    #1758775 - 07/29/03 07:22 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

lex... do you really think that the founders thought it so important to clarify the right of the army

Where does it say "army" in the second amendment?


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1758783 - 07/29/03 07:27 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Alpo, I pasted the Supreme Courts decision

Let me post it:

A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

Explain how this gives the individual the right to own arms.

and then follow it up with a list filled with who knows what

They are a list of legal cases that reject the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment. Take heed of them.


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


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


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Xlea321]
    #1758838 - 07/29/03 07:58 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Surely Alpo, even you can see that only says that shotguns with less than an 18 barrel are not covered by the second amendment.


Quote:

Take heed of them


Don't need to. The supreme court has already spoken and says that civilians are the militia you speak of. And with the words the people appearing in the second, that covers the rest quite nicely.

They say so here....
The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' ' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.''

So that quite nicely puts an end to your claim that the 2nd doesn't cover civilians.. The court and the 2nd both say it does.You claim it only applies to the militia, the court says the militia is civilians.

Now, you don't have to like it, you may wish it not to be, but sadly for you and the butt munching Brady bunch, the Supreme Court has stated that the militia is the civilians. You don't even have to take my word for it as it's easily verifiable.
The Supreme Court trumps your wishes and the Brady Bunch's wishes.
The only ones who can reverse that is the Court itself.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Amazon Scales, Toilet Paper

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Exploding the left’s red state myths
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Echro 3,989 65 02/16/14 04:23 AM
by starfire_xes
* myth of the media
( 1 2 3 all )
phi1618 3,785 55 04/29/04 07:31 PM
by DigitalDuality
* General Welfare
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,413 45 12/14/03 05:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* The Twelve Myths of Hunger
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
silversoul7 9,357 117 10/21/05 11:48 PM
by Unagipie
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 9,877 76 12/26/01 01:30 AM
by Phred
* The Myth of the Kerry Calamity Evolving 319 0 10/27/04 10:03 PM
by Evolving
* Welfare to Workfare
( 1 2 3 all )
lysergic 2,969 58 10/21/03 01:07 PM
by Rono
* Welfare in tribal societies
( 1 2 all )
somebodyelse 4,050 36 06/27/03 04:35 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,988 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Cannabis Seeds UK
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.067 seconds spending 0.036 seconds on 22 queries.