Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2218519 -

I think it was a good idea certainly, but Im not convinced that they got it entirely right.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: GazzBut]
    #2218585 -

GazzBut said:
I think it was a good idea certainly, but Im not convinced that they got it entirely right.


You're right.

They forgot term limits.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2218600 -

Other than that its a work of perfection?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: GazzBut]
    #2218618 -

If you'd like to ask about a specific part, feel free.

EDIT: They should have specified an absolute seperation of church and state for despite claims to the contrary, it doesn't exist.


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

Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/04/04 02:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: GazzBut]
    #2218704 -

If only they'd dropped that milita bit out of the second amendment. That really fucked the NRA up.. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2218708 -

Alpo, you know full well that's bullshit and wishful thinking on your part.

It's been laid out enough times for you in this forum.

Stop being obtuse. Oh.... wait....


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2218710 -

Too bad the NRA havn't the balls to test it in the courts..y'think it's because they'd know they'd lose?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2218714 -

Don't read the news much? They've made multiple attempts. One just recently.

I'm sure even a man with your limited abilities and powers of comprehension can find the info. You need only have the desire to actually learn something that goes against your pre-conceived notions.

Which means you won't bother, but that's OK. It just reinforces what many here think of you anyway.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2218715 -

Got links?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2218731 -

As I said....

I'm sure even a man with your limited abilities and powers of comprehension can find the info. You need only have the desire to actually learn something that goes against your pre-conceived notions.

Which means you won't bother, but that's OK. It just reinforces what many here think of you anyway.

Now.... i'm simply not in the mood today to make you appear the fool. It's too easy.

Waste someone elses time.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2219814 -

In other words you are lying and know you'll get caught out again if you post a link.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2219849 -

No, it means I know full well you don't have the backbone to actually look.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2219867 -

Thought so  :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2219875 -

Knew it.

Be a man, take a look.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2219884 -

Ok, here's what I found  :rolleyes:

U.S. Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to NRA's View of the Second Amendment 

12/2/2003

Court Denies Review of Key Gun Case

Washington, DC - This morning, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to California's strongest-in-the-nation Assault Weapons Ban. The High Court's action leaves undisturbed an earlier ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Silveira v. Lockyer, upholding the California statute and ruling that the Second Amendment confers a right to possess and use firearms only in connection with state militia activities. The National Rifle Association had filed a "friend of the court" brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Silveira decision, but the Court has declined.

"The action of the United States Supreme Court today in denying review of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer repudiates the extremist gun lobby and others who view the Second Amendment as a weapon against reasonable gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project.  "It remains true that never in our nation's history has a federal court struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."

Since a panel of the Fifth Circuit broke from precedent two years ago in United States v. Emerson, to rule that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to firearms ownership,  every federal district and appellate court ruling - more than 20 in all - has rejected its reasoning and the NRA's view, and has held that the Second Amendment does not provide individuals with a right to possess firearms absent a relationship with a state militia.  Even the Fifth Circuit in the Emerson case, despite endorsing the individual rights view, upheld the particular gun law under attack.  "With today's actions by the Supreme Court, the gun lobby continues its unbroken string of defeats in Second Amendment challenges to gun laws," Henigan added. "There is no more settled area of constitutional law."

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case comes as debate intensifies in the U.S. Congress over the expiration, in November of next year, of the federal Assault Weapon Ban. Due to a 10-year sunset provision in the federal statute, it will come to an end unless Congress acts to renew it. Said Mr. Henigan:  "It is now settled that there is no constitutional right to own UZIs and AK-47s. The NRA's distortion of constitutional principles has been exposed for the fraud that it is."

The Silveira decision also marks the sixth defeat for legal challenges to California's Assault Weapons Ban, originally passed in 1989 and strengthened since.  The NRA first challenged the Assault Weapon Act on Second Amendment grounds in 1989, shortly after the law was enacted following a massacre on a Stockton schoolyard in which 34 children were shot. The NRA's lawsuit, Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Although the NRA used the promise of a legal challenge to the law to raise money in mass fundraising appeals, the NRA simply dropped the case in 1992 rather than appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567823,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2219894 -

First... I thought you said they didn't have the balls to go to court?

Second... try a little research on the 9th circuit court.


--------------------
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 Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2219895 -

Although the NRA used the promise of a legal challenge to the law to raise money in mass fundraising appeals, the NRA simply dropped the case in 1992 rather than appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2220240 -

"the militia" means armed citizens. the national guard is only PART of the militia. you needn't be in the national guard to be considered part of "the militia". you needn't be in the national guard to keep arms.

an analogy:

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

analogy from www.guncite.com.

in addition to the second amendment, one can find many statements made by the founding fathers expressing their ideas about arms. it is very clear from these statements that they intended the united states to have an armed populace. it is very clear that they intended for americans to be permitted to keep arms. it is very clear that the meaning of the word "militia" meant all armed citizens. i challenge anyone to find a statement made by any of them expressing that citizens should not be allowed to keep arms, or that "the militia" only applies to the national guard (founded in 1903) or other regular military services. any time a modern-day US court has "interpreted" the constitution in this way, it has been a glaring example of improper judicial activism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: ]
    #2220254 -

The supreme court don't see it like that tho.

one can find many statements made by the founding fathers expressing their ideas

That's not really the point. The only thing that matters is what the AMENDMENT says. Unless you assume the founding fathers were too stupid to simply make the amendment say "All members of the public shall carry a gun" they inserted the part about the militia for a reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Hypothetical Question for Conservatives [Re: Xlea321]
    #2220339 -

The supreme court don't see it like that tho.

what surpreme court decision are you referring to? who was the plaintiff in the case? the defendant? what was the decision? what was the vote? where can we find some commentary made by the justices about the decision? when was this case?


That's not really the point. The only thing that matters is what the AMENDMENT says.

you are right, but fortunately, the text of the ammendment is entirely consistant with what the founding fathers were saying at the time.

Unless you assume the founding fathers were too stupid to simply make the amendment say "All members of the public shall carry a gun" they inserted the part about the militia for a reason.

militia clause or not, the second amendment still reads, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". you can stick whatever words you want in front of that and it still means... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". you can twist and distort the meaning of the word "militia" to whatever suits you, but the meaning of "the people" is pretty plain i think, and it still reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

what do you think "militia" means in the context of the second amendment? what do you think "the people" means?

and do have another look at that analogy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Liberals suck. So do conservatives.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Anonymous 11,277 105 01/26/03 12:53 PM
by GoBlue!
* liberals vs. conservatives
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 1stimer 6,856 70 06/21/03 09:32 PM
by Anonymous
* real conservatives vote democrat.
( 1 2 all )		 Malachi 3,627 22 07/21/03 09:52 PM
by Malachi
* Conservatives who trip
( 1 2 all )		 moonrawk 5,877 37 09/10/01 11:51 AM
by Innvertigo
* A couple of questions on the minimum wage
( 1 2 all )		 Evolving 3,662 29 10/21/03 03:40 PM
by Evolving
* Why are conservatives so heartless and cruel?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,132 48 03/06/03 09:12 AM
by EchoVortex
* The man is an embarrassment to the word conservative. luvdemshrooms 1,018 5 01/24/04 12:20 PM
by TrueBrode
* Conservatives Against a War with Iraq Evolving 879 3 03/12/03 12:27 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,613 topic views. 9 members, 58 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 18 queries.