Christine O`Donnell Laughed At By Students

Submitted by: BenTheBug 6 years ago in

For something really basic like not knowing the First Amendment. Don"t kids in the US learn that it like, 3rd grade?
There are 412 comments:
Male 5,413
No, they should not teach religion in schools. You shouldn`t be graded on some stupid fairy tail book.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
You`re right- by my argument everything taught in schools invalidates all religions and no-religions. It`s absolute indifference, and that`s how the government should treat religion- it just shouldn`t care. It`s like a fly in the room, it`s there but it is inconsequential to my function- what i do. Maybe it`s annoying and I want to kill it, maybe I want to respect the animal; but I just ignore it. That`s how, in my mind, the constitution lays out the treatment for religions.

I would have continued the conversation but I got caught up in some stuff. I appreciate level-headed, intelligent debate and conversation.

Thank You, too.
0
Reply
Female 58
she`s the new sarah palin
0
Reply
Male 663
If you come back to this thread I will give you the last word. Finding it has become a pain for me.

I have enjoyed our conversation and learned a bit in the process as well, both about how others view the issue and about my views as well.

Thank you
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>You are making a jump that "any" state or local ordinance that establishes a religion, teaches the ideas of one, or displays iconography from one, violates the rights of those that practice another to freely practice their religion. <<<<


Again I ask how this is true in every case?
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>> So teaching something opposite of what they believe, or contrary to what they believe will not necessarily CHANGE their beliefs but they are being provided a proposition that implies that their beliefs are false, that they are wrong, and since it cannot be disproven and since it is being respected by a federal institution it is the official description. If you tell me that the sky is blue, but I tell you that the sky is orange and it`s taught in school and absorbed as fact by your peers- who is right and who is wrong? The thousands of people that now say the sky is orange, or you whom “believe” that the sky is blue. We have, in effect, invalidated your belief- even if you still believe it, because the official definition is that the sky is orange.<<<<


Then by your argument NOTHING can be taught in schools as it challenges and invalidates some religion. From your argument regarding the 14th. >>>The government as a WHOLE c
0
Reply
Male 1,299
Belief and reality are different things. Beliefs are our perception of reality and reality is how things genuinely exist. Teaching someone that the world isn`t flat may not change their belief but it does conflict with it- the issue is that one can demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. Anyone choosing to believe in a flat planet is ignoring reality.

(below)
0
Reply
Male 1,299
No classic religion can be proven or disproved, much to the chagrin of militant atheists. So teaching something opposite of what they believe, or contrary to what they believe will not necessarily CHANGE their beliefs but they are being provided a proposition that implies that their beliefs are false, that they are wrong, and since it cannot be disproven and since it is being respected by a federal institution it is the official description. If you tell me that the sky is blue, but I tell you that the sky is orange and it`s taught in school and absorbed as fact by your peers- who is right and who is wrong? The thousands of people that now say the sky is orange, or you whom “believe” that the sky is blue. We have, in effect, invalidated your belief- even if you still believe it, because the official definition is that the sky is orange.

(below)
0
Reply
Male 1,299
The law attempts to deal with absolutes, which rarely exist and so in schools we teach attempt to teach these simple absolutes: Science, Grammar, Spelling, and History... there are very few abstract topics that are covered by primary school. Religion is not ubiquitous, it is unlikely to ever be an absolute and so if something is proposed as an absolute and treated as if it were an absolute whether or not you continue to believe in it the reality of the world that you live in is that your belief has been painted as "wrong."

(below)
0
Reply
Male 1,299
What I meant to imply by bringing back the 14th amendment is: By combining the concept of neither respecting or promoting a religion (the 1st) and the concept that the laws must apply equally to all (the 14th) if a state intends to "respect a religion" it must respect all religions or no religions.

My knowledge is: the 14th amendment essentially made all federal laws applicable to all extensions of the government- courts- prisons, state legislation, schools, etc... The government as a WHOLE cannot respect or dis-respect a religion- however it is the freedom of the individuals INSIDE the government to respect or dis-respect whatever religions they choose.

(below)
0
Reply
Male 1,299
This concept that schools or states operate outside of the restrictions of "Congress" is dated. At the time of inception there were no federal social institutions- it would have been impossible to include that which does not exist. As part of the fluidity and rigidity of the constitution, however, that value has been applied unchanged to all government entities- including the military, the department of transportation and so forth.

No argument needs to made that this the reality because this IS the reality. Similarly to the world being flat- you can get a bunch of balloons and a camera and view with your own record that the Earth is indeed spherical. It`s not IN the constitution- but this returns us to the argument that "if it isn`t in the constitution, it is not so." This is also a false belief.

I understand you playing Devil’s advocate but for what purpose? I can`t make anything change? If you think you see a loophole- challenge it.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>I believe that no one knows for sure and thats about it, but thats not the argument I am trying to make) and then the kids can choose what they feel is correct<<<

But that is not science. Science is sometimes wrong but at any point in time it is the most logical way to explain the current facts and observed cause and effect relations. Eventually enough discrepancies arise that a new better theory will emerge witness special relativity replacing newtonian mechanics. But that was not because everyone "chose what they feel was correct."
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>To teach the concept of "intelligent design" in school essentially validates it. Those people that are atheist, hindu, muslim, shinto, santeria, various native american beliefs and etc... would then essentially be having their beliefs invalidated. <<<

Teaching that some people believe “X” and this is why does not invalidate your belief to the contrary. There are some people that believe that the world is flat, does teaching that the planet is essentially round invalidate that belief in their minds?
Continued below:
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>The second point; the first amendment states that there shall be no laws respecting a religion- this would also obviously violate that law
The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” It does not say that religious beliefs can not be taught in schools. It just says It can not be the result of Congress enacting a law.
Continued below:
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>. Lastly, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment implies that even if it isn`t illegal for the sheer fact that it is a law respecting a religion it doesn`t respect ALL available viewpoints as equally compelling. I.E. it must give credence to all religious creation theories or none.<<<<

This is reading a lot into the 14th amendment, which specifically says NOTHING about religion.

Continued below:
0
Reply
Male 663
The specific part of the 14th that does help your argument is “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” You are making a jump that any state or local ordinance that establishes a religion, teaches the ideas of one, or displays iconography from one, violates the rights of those that practice another to freely practice their religion. Again, I believe that it is true but I have yet to see an argument that is convincing that this is a universal result.
Continued below:
0
Reply
Male 663
By the way laws get passed that do limit the ability of some to practice their religion. See laws that limit the ability of some religions to use drugs in their worship, limits to sharia law, laws about polygamy, limits to the celebration of the lord’s supper by those under 21…… But this is perhaps a different discussion.
0
Reply
Male 87
I think it would do well to pair these ideas, with the paradigm shift video that was posted a few days ago. They should teach it open ended and leave it to interpretation. Give the kids the facts and evidence supporting each theory (because evolution really makes a lot less sense than people think, given the age of the earth, blah, blah, blah... I believe that no one knows for sure and thats about it, but thats not the argument I am trying to make) and then the kids can choose what they feel is correct.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
To teach the concept of "intelligent design" in school essentially validates it. Those people that are atheist, hindu, muslim, shinto, santeria, various native american beliefs and etc... would then essentially be having their beliefs invalidated. The second point; the first amendment states that there shall be no laws respecting a religion- this would also obviously violate that law. Lastly, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment implies that even if it isn`t illegal for the sheer fact that it is a law respecting a religion it doesn`t respect ALL available viewpoints as equally compelling. I.E. it must give credence to all religious creation theories or none.

Three points of infraction.
0
Reply
Male 663
DickenMcHunt and NotTHATBored

It seems that we probably agree on the outcome, but not the thinking that brought us there.

DickenMcHunt: Do not worry I did not think that you were attacking my personal beliefs, after all were are on a chat board and what I write might be 180 away from my real beliefs. In any case some of us have freely exchanged ideas and opinions. What I would hope that all people do instead of what we typically see in the media.

>>>However, if a state enacted a law prohibiting or promoting a particular religion it would abridge their freedom of religion.<<<

In the former "prohibiting" a religion I 100% agree with you, but how does promoting one religion prevent the free exercise of another? For example teaching the idea of intelligent design. (By the way I believe that it does but I have not yet seen a convincing argument that does not rely on specifics of some situation. Thus I am not sure that
0
Reply
Male 1,299
I`m not sure how the 14th amendmant was brought into this, I see little relevance. The only correlation I can draw is that someone is implying that the federal government refuses to make laws for or against religion and therefore a state could make a law and the federal government could not interfere. However, if a state enacted a law prohibiting or promoting a particular religion it would abridge their freedom of religion. In the event of violating federal precedence the 14th amendment itself states that a state is unable to erect such a conflict thereby invalidating any state law promoting or prohibiting a religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
Dang007

I never questioned your beliefs, nor intended to make my responses appear as personal attacks. My point was that less of the constitution is as explicit as we define it as is more explicit.

If the government cannot make a law that respects or disrespects any religion all religions must have the same stature to the government and therefore all government institutions. As the government cannot grant equal recognition to all religions as all time it must ignore all religions in terms of its behavior. It cannot do anything religious nor can it halt the relgious practices of non-government entities. This is effectively a seperation of church and state. The words are different from the effect; what other effect can be extrapolated from those words? In the views of the drafters, all courts since and every administration since that view has been recognized.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Irg. You are even more right than I thought. When re-reading what that paragraph actually says, "The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress" it doesn`t even mention state government. Still I am sure that there is legal precedent for seperation of church and state on a state level. A curse on you! I will do more research next time! A curse on you!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Dang007 Mh... that is a very interesting way of looking at it. I admit you have stumped me. Curse you. Perhaps the courts look at it as some sort of an implied right for citizens not just as a State vs. Federal Powers issue? Like the right to be free of a government established religion? I don`t know. Obviously they have some other way of looking at it since this is what I got from the Cornell Law website,

" The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments".

However they do not explain how they came to that interpretation which is frustrating. I`m sure that there must be more to it.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
That means if congress can`t do it according to the constitution, the states can`t<<<
<<<

Not quite..It means that if the citizens have a right or privilege the states do not have the ability to restrict it.
Continued below----
0
Reply
Male 663
The first amendment clearly states certain rights; free exercise of religion, the freedom of the speech and the press, peaceably assemble, etc. The 14th clearly limits the ability of the individual states with regards to rights of the people. It did not change which rights were reserved for the states or prohibited to the feds. Thus limits or lack of limits on establishment of a religion, which is clearly a "power" of the government not a "right" of the people, are not directly affected.

You could argue that a state that established a state religion is limiting the free exercise of another religion. But then you need to support the argument that this is a universal result of a state establishing a religion. (I happen to believe that this is the correct argument.) However, this line of reasoning has little to do with separation of church and state.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"In the case of the first amendment what has been lost is the difference between the federal and state and local branches of government."

What has been lost on your is the 14th amendment. It says,

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

That means if congress can`t do it according to the constitution, the states can`t do it.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>... law in question is often simplified as a "Separation of Church and State." This view has been upheld by the court and is unlikely to be changed, therefore it would be safe to say that those debating semantics on how the clause is worded are in fact splitting hairs, and are also: wrong.<<<<


Sure that`s the world we live in the supreme court gets to decide the semantics of the constitution. (Semantics is after all the study of meaning, usually in language.) And indeed we all have to live with that. But to suggest that we can not disagree with the court, that we should be laughed at when we do, or to assume the court is always correct seems a bit silly to me.


Finally, as with just about any simplification, details usually get lost when we try and restate something in more simple terms. In the case of the first amendment what has been lost is the difference between the federal and state and local branches of governme
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>
Granted, it is true that one can use diction in this way, however, if there was to be a unanimous ratification: any intelligent person would force you to be clear about the scenario and adapt your wording in order to more accurately reflect the intention as agreed upon by all parties. <<<

Bingo... That`s what they did and that`s why the constitution is CLEAR as written and does not need or require some clever reinterpretation to make it fit what we wish it means.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>"Suppose we all unanimously voted that you could only wear brown pants on Wed. Then later I write that what that really meant was that brown pants were not supposed to be worn during the week. Which should the courts enforce?"

This is a red herring- it seems like it makes sense but actually it does little more than distract and confuse, as the analogy ignores reality. What you are proposing is that it would be possible to word something requiring ratification in such a way that would appear as if it were describing a particular situation when in fact it is describing something else entirely. Granted, it is true that one can use diction in this way, however, if there was to be a unanimous ratification: any intelligent person would force you to be clear about the scenario and adapt your wording in order to more accurately reflect the intention as agreed upon by all parties. <<<

Bingo... That`s what they did and that`s why the constitut
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Either the Drafters tried to trick the Founders or the other Founders were morons- and neither is necessarily true, or relevant as the matter of fact is that the accepted definition as upheld by courts is the concept of a “Separation of Church and State.” <<,


Good grief that`s my point. The drafters and the founders ARGEED on the language and they were not stupid. They were not stupid, had they meant full separation off all governmental organizations and religion. THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO CLEARLY AT THE TIME. They did not and the practices of the time in the several states and local municipalities DEMONSTRATE that that is not what they meant. What they meant is what they wrote.. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....

Just because the court found nearly 175 years LATER that this meant all governmental organizations in addition to congress does not make them correct.

Continued below.
0
Reply
Male 663
I happen to believe that there should be a separation of church and state. I also happen to believe that there should be a mandatory waiting period before firearms or ammunition can be purchased and the government should have some power to restrict what types of fire arms and ammunition can be owned and used by citizens. HOWEVER, the constitution is written in a language that clearly says otherwise. Nine people on the court should not just change the meaning because it feels good at the time.
0
Reply
Male 3
damn comments, you scary
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]If you go back and read a transcript of the debate without the hoots and laughter from the brainwashed children in the peanut gallery, it`s obvious O`Donnell actually won the debate.[/quote]
I know this is a late response - been away for the weekend - but I`d just like to take this opportunity to laugh at Ollie for providing a transcript to a DIFFERENT debate. Did you not even read it after Googling for a transcript?

Let me recommend a keyboard shortcut to you Ollie. Ctrl+F. Find. Makes it instantly obvious that the contents of this video are not on that transcript.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@dang007
Me: "...the clause was made apparent by the founders in more simple English numerous times."

You: "Yet it is the constitution... that was VOTED on and AGREED to. It’s ridiculous to use what someone wrote later as the meaning."

Yes and no; I also stated in that post that the Constitution was intentionally written with formal and flowery diction; it was the method of the times. The way which it was worded may seem unusual to us, however, it was most likely understood more readily, at the time and by peers of similar education. Secondly, not a single article of the constitution went without a revision or debate- I find it hard to believe that all parties present would ratify a full Constitution without fully understanding the implications of every word. (Continued Below…)
0
Reply
Male 1,299
The Founders were extremely intelligent people on all fronts and to assume that they would not question something ambiguous is foolish. Case in point: The Bill of Rights. It was the intention of the drafters to include several concepts which later became “the Bill of Rights,” doing so, however, was delayed as a result of a failure to reach consensus. Thus the late bill was drafted and ratified once consensus WAS reached. Why then would one assume the Drafters would use weasel diction or that the other Founders would not question, or understand a specific clause? It makes no sense. Either the Drafters tried to trick the Founders or the other Founders were morons- and neither is necessarily true, or relevant as the matter of fact is that the accepted definition as upheld by courts is the concept of a “Separation of Church and State.” Which is also irrelevant as it has been shown that Ms. O’Donnell has a rudimentary grasp of the Constitution as a whole.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@dang007
"To those that are saying that she is splitting hairs over semantics, what do you think constitutional law is all about?"

Constitutional Law, and Constitutional Lawyers, don’t define the Constitution. Instead, they practice law concerning constitutional violations, often this challenges accepted Constitutional Definitions. However, most (and to my knowledge, all) Constitutional Laws have not altered since inception, although many have been expanded or elaborated to include modern conventions; free speech on the internet, blogs being defined as “media.” Furthermore, as it has been stated previously: the accepted definition of the law in question is often simplified as a "Separation of Church and State." This view has been upheld by the court and is unlikely to be changed, therefore it would be safe to say that those debating semantics on how the clause is worded are in fact splitting hairs, and are also: wrong.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@dang007
"Suppose we all unanimously voted that you could only wear brown pants on Wed. Then later I write that what that really meant was that brown pants were not supposed to be worn during the week. Which should the courts enforce?"

This is a red herring- it seems like it makes sense but actually it does little more than distract and confuse, as the analogy ignores reality. What you are proposing is that it would be possible to word something requiring ratification in such a way that would appear as if it were describing a particular situation when in fact it is describing something else entirely. Granted, it is true that one can use diction in this way, however, if there was to be a unanimous ratification: any intelligent person would force you to be clear about the scenario and adapt your wording in order to more accurately reflect the intention as agreed upon by all parties.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Pancake57 your are right the Establishment Clause in the first ammendment does not apply to the states. However, if you look up case law you will see that the 14th amendment has been interpreted as extending the Establishment Clause to the states, since it says that states cannot abridge any of the protections granted by the constitution. Meaning they cannot do something that it would be illegal for the federal government to do.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Also the first study is not the one in question its the second. Your source is not the CDC it is a website with an agenda, and who knows how they picked and chose the data that they got from the CDC. They very well could have left something important out, politicans and special interest groups do that ALL THE TIME.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Because I want conclusive evidence, not just evidence from a source that is obviously pro-gun control? Yes it tells me that deaths from guns are higher in states with more guns but it doesn`t prove that one caused the other. If I just accepted that I would be a terrible scientist. Come on now.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Better education --> more people knowing how to use a weapon responsibly. Legal death rates drop."

We do not yet have a number provided to us as to what exactly the legal death rates are so how do we know if we need to invest our very limited tax dollars on this new education program and all the paper work and man power it will consume? The few deaths that do occur may hit close to home but so does homelessness or hunger.

"Criminals tend to be more on the stupid side, so pulling a gun on them is likely going to do more to make the already hostile situation worse than diffuse it."

No criminals tend to be more on the opportunistic side. As in they are looking for an easy target and an easy win. If you look like you are going to fight back or pose any risk to them they move on to the next target.

"You would make a TERRIBLE scientist, by the way..."



0
Reply
Male 40,752
Altaru: the guy who hates flame wars, yets posts MORE THAN ANYONE!
Altaru: the guy who says he`s done... but keeps posting!
Altaru: who confuses a `treaty` (which was later voided) or a `letter` with `The US Constitution` on a regular basis.
Altaru = troll; please do not feed!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote">That does not mean/imply/state that they can`t recognize the Christian foundations of your country[/quote">
And YOU need to shut the f*ck up and read the Treaty of Tripoli before you say sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
8 hours of sleep helped me notice this...

[quote]There are also many other factors that could contribute to that data being unreliable. For instance, do the states wuith stricter gun laws also have better police protection? Do the generally have less crime? Are they better off financially? Etc. Etc. It just doesn`t give you enough information.[/quote]
Hmm... Let me ask you, were I to, in fact, provide a link with ALL of these statistics... What WOULD you do, I wonder?

[quote]Not to mention its put forth by a very biased source so it could be misleading.[/quote]
Oh, that`s right, use the ALMIGHTY F*CKING CATCH-ALL.

That`s right, it doesn`t agree with you. It`s obviously a biased study.

Doesn`t matter that the first study I presented was non-partisan, or that in the second the death rates were collected by the f*cking CDC (which does a lot more than just "disease" control, incidentally).
0
Reply
Male 17
Or . . the person writing these captions doesn`t know the constitution.

The government cannot ESTABLISH a national religion. That does not mean/imply/state that they can`t recognize the Christian foundations of your country
0
Reply
Male 3,482
And this will be my final post for the night. It`s 4 in the morning. Sure, it`s Saturday, so it doesn`t really matter, but still...

[quote]I don`t care who thinks what or what may appear to be common sense to you or anyone else. I want evidence.[/quote]
You would make a TERRIBLE scientist, by the way...

You`re asking for experimental data on the results of a project that`s still in it`s hypothesis stage.

I`ve provided statistics and references that have led to my hypothesis, but what YOU are demanding is the results of the experiment before it`s even been run.

And if the experiment HAS been run before... I`m not going to sit here sifting through 100 Google pages for each of the 1000 different key-words that might be attached to such a project to find the data.

At least, not until SOMEONE provides me with data proving that guns "save more lives than they take."
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Like for instance if you are out numbered or out classed with a weapon.[/quote]
Just jumping on this for a second...

With your assuming the criminals will, more often than not, have weapons of their own...

You`re outnumbered. You have a gun. You pull it out. They have guns too. You`re still outnumbered, you`re still screwed.

Only, now that you`ve bared your teeth, there`s only three ways out of the situation: death, victory, or outside intervention.

Criminals tend to be more on the stupid side, so pulling a gun on them is likely going to do more to make the already hostile situation worse than diffuse it.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Seriously, can you argue that it would hurt?

Considering that the U.S. has one of the highest murder rates out of the "developed" countries, it can`t hurt to try something new in the interest of public safety, can it?

Seriously, you`re acting like there isn`t even a problem that needs solved.

All the victims might be "statistics" to you, but when something like this has hit close to home, you might start to understand and see that all those victims were people.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Legal death rates drop. [/quote]
Re-phrasing that...

Death-rates via legally-owned firearms drop.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]illegal weapons in which case educating weapons owners is not going to help.[/quote]
Once again, there really IS no reliable data that shows a correlation between education and crime rates, because very few studies have been done on it.

But a common sense thought process should go something like this:

Better education --> more people knowing how to use a weapon responsibly. Legal death rates drop.

More people knowing how to use guns responsibly --> more people owning and using guns responsibly. Crime rates drop, because criminals know that everyone has a gun, and everyone knows how to use it.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
There are also many other factors that could contribute to that data being unreliable. For instance, do the states wuith stricter gun laws also have better police protection? Do the generally have less crime? Are they better off financially? Etc. Etc. It just doesn`t give you enough information. Not to mention its put forth by a very biased source so it could be misleading.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
may be from illegal weapons in which case educating weapons owners is not going to help.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"saved more lives than they`ve taken."

Never said that, but I like how you added the quotes. Maybe OldOllie said it. It`s actually irrelevant if guns save more lives than they take if the deaths are from illegally owned guns.

"If people in ALASKA (which doesn`t even require a license to carry a concealed weapon) agree that better education is better all around, than how can you argue?"

Like I said who thinks what is irrelevant unless you have proof of your assertian that education lowers deaths. Plus I`m not exactly looking for my states legislation to emulate the legislation of a state that elected Sarah Palin.

Well your link is a start. However... it tells us nothing about whether or not the guns used in the crimes were legal or illegal. It very well could be that some or most of them were not legal. It is also logical that if you live in a high crime state more people are going to legally own guns but that most of the crime m
0
Reply
Male 80
thats funny as hell
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Need me to keep going with stats and facts to combat your emotion and selfishness? [/quote]
Another thing I just noticed...

I`m always accused of doing what my opponent does later... And yet I`m wrong, and they`re right...

There`s a lot of people on IAB that need to learn the meaning of the terms "double-standard" and "hypocrisy..."
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Need me to keep going with stats and facts to combat your emotion and selfishness?

[quote]You`re just a lazy liberal extremist who likes to hear himself talk. [/quote]
By the way, I just noticed this. Well, I just decided to really pay attention to it, anyway.

Let`s see, by count that makes me... A "Facist" to one person (I`m counting the other as a sheep, not a person), a "liberal" to two (OldOllie, you called me a liberal, right?), and a "conservative" to one (MADEST, no less...)

Soo... According to everyone else... Where exactly do I sit on the political spectrum?

Or did I broked it?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Here`s another link for ya.

This one uses a study complied using data from the CDC and VPC to determine the gun death-rates as compared to the rate of gun ownership in the fifty states.

It`s still a little dated, from 2005, but unless things have changed radically (which I highly doubt), still relevant.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
And OldTrollie, I have another link for you to read.

It`s a little dated, but it gets the point across.

That study (basically) shows that even LEGALLY having a gun in your home increases your risk of being killed by one, among various other gun statistics.

You`re ONE responsible person. Just like you act like my (supposedly) alcoholic family is a special case, YOURS is simply the opposite extreme

You didn`t beat ANYONE into submission, my legs are just getting tired from stepping on all these ants.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Your just to lazy to look for it.[/quote]
You`re right. In the same manner that not ONE of you has provided ANY proof that guns have "saved more lives than they`ve taken."

Besides that, there AREN`T any reliable statistics or surveys done on the issue (that I could find before I got fed up with this bullsh*t). I will say this: I found a case of an Alaskan school district integrating firearm safety education into their program.

If people in ALASKA (which doesn`t even require a license to carry a concealed weapon) agree that better education is better all around, than how can you argue?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
NTB, I think we beat him into submission.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"F*ck it, I`m done with you people."

Or perhaps we are done with you. AH-HA-HA-HA! That`s right leave! AH-HA-HA! Can`t hold your arguement!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"One`s asking for proof of concept in which there is no tested precedent, and the other`s just an idiot."

Your just to lazy to look for it. You are telling me there aren`t places with stricter gun laws? Psssh. You just want to hear yourself talk about nothing with no evidence. You could evev give me a number of how many acidental deaths occur from guns, but you didn`t produce that either. You`re just a lazy liberal extremist who likes to hear himself talk.

This is you talking...

;-()
0
Reply
Female 1,101
depend on JUST your smarts.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
F*ck it, I`m done with you people.

One`s asking for proof of concept in which there is no tested precedent, and the other`s just an idiot.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Which is EXACTLY why there are countless cases of incidents that get headlines along the lines of "father fatally shoots son after son comes home after hours.""

Why do I never see this on the news? One case does not mean something happens all the time.

"Or it`s entirely possible that, instead of relying on GUNS to defend myself, I use my head. Ever think... Never mind, I forgot, you don`t think... You shoot."

Sometimes smarts don`t matter. Like for instance if you are out numbered or out classed with a weapon. Sad but true. Your brain can`t always save you. As a woman, I am realistic about that fact. My brains will take me so far if I ever have to fight a man. I can for instance poke his eyes out or rip off his ear, but you know there are situations that I would be uterly screwed in without a weapon. That`s why when I lived in the city I carried a knife if I was going to be out late or alone. Crazy? Maybe. But you can`t always
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Altru No offense, but there is no way that I am going to sift through every single one of your posts directed at a million different people or rants about your cold hands. I get distracted easily. I am simply questioning one aspect of your arguement for stricter gun control.

"Stricter gun laws, maybe not. I`ll get on that right away.

However, "better education" is more often than not supported by the gun-nuts, if that says anything."

No it does not say anything. I don`t care who thinks what or what may appear to be common sense to you or anyone else. I want evidence. Especially if we the tax payer are going to have to shoulder ANY of the financial burden for this new gun education that you are suggesting is going to save so many lives. I want proof.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Altaru. if you can`t tell the difference between a home invader and one of your own drunken family members, then you`re right, maybe you shouldn`t keep a gun. Fortunately I don`t have that problem in my family. I`m sorry to hear about the raging alcoholism problem in yours, though.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote](which, by the way, would take WAY more time and effort than simply reading a <1000-character post)[/quote]
Not really. I do it all the time. I skim through people`s posts, and if it says something relevant I take the time to read the whole thing. Pretty simple, though obviously you skip the "read the whole thing" stage.

[quote]Actually, I don`t have a problem.[/quote]
Oh, haha...I get it now... I`ve been trolled. Hard.

Either that or OLDOllie just got hit with his first wave of Alzheimer`s...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Altaru, if someone breaks down my door, I`m not going to negotiate rules of engagement with him; I`m going to blow his f**king head off.[/quote]
Which is EXACTLY why there are countless cases of incidents that get headlines along the lines of "father fatally shoots son after son comes home after hours."

You should just be glad you`ve never come home drunk one morning (or otherwise "intoxicated..." >_>) and decided to raid the fridge, seeing as how if anyone else in your household follows the same doctrine YOU do, you`d be dead right now.

[quote]Face it, you were just lucky that neither of those guys who broke in on you had a gun.[/quote]
Or it`s entirely possible that, instead of relying on GUNS to defend myself, I use my head. Ever think... Never mind, I forgot, you don`t think... You shoot.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I`ve presented MY solutions to the problem, where`s yours?[/quote]
Actually, I don`t have a problem.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Altaru, if someone breaks down my door, I`m not going to negotiate rules of engagement with him; I`m going to blow his f**king head off. If you stab someone who has a gun, even if it`s a fatal wound, he`s more than likely going to shoot you at least once, and that gunshot will be much more damaging and much more likely to be fatal than a knife wound.

Face it, you were just lucky that neither of those guys who broke in on you had a gun. If they had, you`d be tits up in a box.

Regarding your contention that I use key word searching (which, by the way, would take WAY more time and effort than simply reading a <1000-character post), that`s either a very lame attempt at humor, or you`re just bat-$#!+ crazy.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Oh, and, uhh... If people are wandering around getting into gun-fights on the street, then that`s a problem that needs solved some-how, don`t you think?

I`ve presented MY solutions to the problem, where`s yours?

All YOU`VE done is bitch and scream and call me an idiot because my suggestion might involve keeping the toys with the small-parts out of the hands of the kids that will probably swallow them...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Just a suggestion, when you bring a knife to a gunfight, it usually doesn`t end well for you.[/quote]
Just a suggestion, don`t get into a gun-fight if you don`t know you can win in the first place.

Another suggestion, don`t stick around in situations where gun-fights seem imminent.

Final suggestion? Don`t EVER admit to having a gun, because if your opponent knows you have a gun, chances of things escalating into a gun-fight increase quite a bit.

So, your suggestion is completely irrelevant unless I`m deliberately getting myself into a gun-fight. Otherwise, I`m just going to leave before things get out of hand, or finish things before the guns appear, so I don`t need to bring ANYTHING, there won`t BE a gun-fight.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]And how the hell could I possibly know that I disagreed with your posts if I hadn`t read them? [/quote]
It`s called "key-word-searching."

Basically, you see ANYTHING having to do with "regulation" or "proving oneself," and you start raging.

It`s obviously all you`ve been doing this whole time.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Just a suggestion, when you bring a knife to a gunfight, it usually doesn`t end well for you.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Is this a guessing game? Well, I`d have to say you probably just $#!+ yourself, and he left in disgust. [/quote]
The first time, it wasn`t much. I tipped the entertainment center on him while he was swiping the TV. It wasn`t heavy, but it did the trick.

The second guy, the one that busted the door down, got himself a few holes from a kitchen knife.

So yeah, I do so ever wonder how people defend themselves WITHOUT the oh-so-important saving grace of a gun...?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Altaru, that comment made more sense then all your others put together.[/quote]
I posted that before I realized you weren`t replying to me. When I saw your idiotic reply to my post, I deleted it -- unfortunately not before you copied it.

And how the hell could I possibly know that I disagreed with your posts if I hadn`t read them? Honestly, with an intellect like yours, you shouldn`t be allowed to run loose in Wal-mart without your staff attendant.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Oh? What`d you delete your post for?

It`s alright, I quoted it, so it`s preserved.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Oh, gee, I do so ever wonder how I defended my life from invaders TWICE before I even knew what the safety on a gun was...? I do so ever wonder how I survived having a six-foot-three lumberjack-built psycho break down the door to the place I was staying at the time without putting a spinning piece of metal in his face...?[/quote]
Is this a guessing game? Well, I`d have to say you probably just $#!+ yourself, and he left in disgust.

Anybody who breaks down my door is getting a face full of turkey shot and a permanent dirt nap.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Altaru, that comment made more sense then all your others put together.[/quote]
Well, then, you must not have actually been READING my comments before, just RAGING at them because they didn`t agree with you...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I was BORN with the right to defend my own life, and NOBODY, especially a little pissant like you, is going to take it away. [/quote]
Oh, gee, I do so ever wonder how I defended my life from invaders TWICE before I even knew what the safety on a gun was...? I do so ever wonder how I survived having a six-foot-three lumberjack-built psycho break down the door to the place I was staying at the time without putting a spinning piece of metal in his face...?

[quote]If you think I`m too crazy to own a gun, FIRST you have to appear before a judge and show probable cause, and THEN you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of my peers. [/quote]
By which point there`s more than likely another human being in the ground that shouldn`t be there.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Okay, so... I`m sorry, but I`m kinda caught up reading manga right now, so stats might come later... Or maybe never. I don`t know. I`m easily distracted, and have a lot of other things on my mind right now.

However, stats and precedent aside, common sense should say that having people better educated about guns and having people prove they know how to handle guns before being allowed to carry them around would help.

Again, I`m not pushing for no one to have a gun. I have every intention of carrying a handgun where I can in the future. I`m just pushing for the idea that, if you wanna carry around something made to kill, you should have to prove you`re not gonna use it without good reason.

A thief or whatever is a human being too. A stupid one, mind you, but a human none the less, and the death of another human being is a heavy burden to carry. The decision to take it should not be made lightly.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Can you show that you are mentally stable and have a clean record?[/quote]
Altaru, just who the f**k do you think you are that you can ask me to prove mental stability to you? I was BORN with the right to defend my own life, and NOBODY, especially a little pissant like you, is going to take it away.

If you think I`m too crazy to own a gun, FIRST you have to appear before a judge and show probable cause, and THEN you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of my peers.

Until you do that, I don`t have to show you Jack $#!+
0
Reply
Male 3,482
And you also might try reading ALL of your opponents arguments, instead of pulling the kind of move OldOllie or those other idiots would pull by picking and choosing what things say to make your argument, conveniently leaving out the parts that you don`t like or that disagree with your point of view.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Also you have supplied evidence that many killing happen every year with guns but not that stricter gun laws or better education would prevent those killings. If you had evidence of that I would be very interested.[/quote]
Stricter gun laws, maybe not. I`ll get on that right away.

However, "better education" is more often than not supported by the gun-nuts, if that says anything.

As for your reference to my stun gun comment, that was not all-inclusive. I did say that. I did say that a stun gun could be an alternative for a fire-arm. I did NOT say "no guns, only stun-guns."
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Also you have supplied evidence that many killing happen every year with guns but not that stricter gun laws or better education would prevent those killings. If you had evidence of that I would be very interested.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Altru actually, I did read your arguement. Just incase your forgot here it is:

"Who`s to say the home invader you shot would have killed you? And you could just as easily have shot him with a stun-gun to take him down with a much lower risk of killing him, in which case he escapes his prison sentence."
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Ignoring OldTrollie thinking he`s "won" an argument because he doesn`t even listen to the other side...

If someone`s going to leave a loaded gun in a desk drawer for their kids to get hold of and kill themselves or others by accident or on purpose, f*ck no they shouldn`t be trusted with a deadly weapon.

I bitched my PARENTS out when I found out they kept a Luger in the front drawer of their nightstand. I found it when they asked me to grab something from it.

It was pure laziness and an absolute lack of both caution and respect for the nature of the weapon they had. What if I, a few years younger, had happened across it, messed around with it, and killed myself or one of them?

I`m pushing for better education and to make it more a matter of "take care of what you worked to earn." On the other hand, people like OldOllie here are screaming children because he can`t have his marbles without promising he won`t shove them up his nose.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]@Altru is that the best you can do? So I should have to risk my life and my saftey by relying on a stun gun because you and some other left wing nut jobs don`t believe that I have the right to defend myself with lethal force in my own home?[/quote]
Here`s a hint: try reading my arguments before trying to fight them.

Can you show that you are mentally stable and have a clean record? Can you show that you know how to store, clean, and operate a gun properly so as to minimize the risk to yourself and others? Do you go to firing ranges on a semi-regular basis to make sure you can accurately fire the gun?

These are the questions I want asked. I don`t want the gun taken away from everyone, I want to make sure that if you DO have a gun, you know that it`s dangerous, it CAN and DOES kill people, and that there are safety pre-cautions that need to be taken with it.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Since I made the last cogent argument, and nobody was able to reply with anything other than a lame childish insult...

0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Altru is that the best you can do? So I should have to risk my life and my saftey by relying on a stun gun because you and some other left wing nut jobs don`t believe that I have the right to defend myself with lethal force in my own home? You would put no burden on the criminal who is breaking into my house for his own saftey, because appearently I am supposed to be responsible for that? Well I am glad that the Supreme Court doesn`t agree. I`m proud to be a Pennsylvanian where criminals aren`t the only ones with guns. People need to take responsibility for themselves. If a criminal breaks into my house he knows he is breaking the law and putting himself in danger. His life is his responsibility not mine. I`m about as liberal as you get but you`re veiws seem extreme to me.
0
Reply
Female 95
I hate when people don`t understand that a scientific theory is a scientific LAW! In order for something to be recognized as a scientific theory, it must be backed by so many facts. They should seriously slap everyone who responds to "the theory of evolution" with "the theory of evolution is just that, a "theory" "
0
Reply
Male 5,626
OldOllie, do you not recognize the phrase "separation of church and state" as being from the letters of founding fathers, themselves?

They made it clear in their letters to each other that they were afraid of setting of a government that ran exactly like Europe`s religious empowerment monarchies.
This is the reason the students laughed: It`s in the first words of the First Amendment.

She asked "Where in the constitution is the separation of...?" people thought she was kidding but, later, she showed that she was serious with that question, so, it really doesn`t matter how confidently and eloquently she answered.

She`s lost the race based on this video.


I`m glad I don`t live there. That shi#`s scarier than Jennifer Granholm`s not being able to attract new auto manufacturers to Michigan...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Yep, OldOllie. If it doesn`t agree with you down to the letter, it`s nothing but leftist propaganda.

You can go ahead and manipulate the English language all you want to say what you want, but god forbid anyone do the same to say anything you don`t accept.

I`m not even gonna bother with you, you troll. In fact, I think I`m gonna go fap, because porn is better than dealing with drooling retarded babies crying because they can`t get all the toys they want.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
OldOllie is a troll, do not feed it. Also, how did an argument make is from O`Donell being a dumbass to militia law?
0
Reply
Male 105
Let`s clarify the militia by referencing Title 10 of the US code....

The reserve militia

All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the Reserve Militia, also known as the sedentary militia. Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 USC 311).
0
Reply
Female 59
Some people should never run for office. Sheez!!!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@bob, "your comments are so astonishingly stupid, I don`t even know where to begin to answer them. You obviously don`t have the slightest clue what you`re talking about."

I didn`t think you were smart enough to get it, and apparently I was right. After determining that facts and logic were wasted on you, I decided to try the same kind of arrogant condescension that Coons used against O`Donnell and you seemed to so admire as erudite rhetorical eloquence.

If you go back and read a transcript of the debate without the hoots and laughter from the brainwashed children in the peanut gallery, it`s obvious O`Donnell actually won the debate. She actually answered the questions while Coons replied with evasive condescending bull$#!+ like, "I don’t know if I can respond to that" or
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>I was pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment, which clarify that personal firearms are your right, but ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on the 1st Amendment, which stated "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". That IS separation of church and state. <<<

The point is the supreme court got it correct in the case of the second amendment (although they went though to many hoops instead of simply stating that the amendment means what it says.) and got it WRONG on the first amendment when they expanded its scope to include state and local government in addition to the congress.

While yes the "law of the land" depends on the current interpretation of the constitution by the court. That does not prevent the people from disagreeing with that interpretation and it CERTAINLY does not mean those that do should be laughed at.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>How does a local school teaching an idea that MANY religions of the world teach establish a single state religion?

Soo... All of a sudden local districts are immune to the influence of the Constitution, the almighty Law of the Land in the U.S.?

And teaching Creation as a science would be

A) teaching pseudo-science, which is destructive to the students, and

B) establishing those religions that believe Creation to be more "credible" than those that don`t.<<<

But NOT by the CONGRESS.

Sure teaching creationism as a science is an idiotic, stupid, ignorant thing to do. But it is not prevented by the second amendment. Now should the Congress of the US require the teaching of creationism you might have a point. But LOCAL school district are NOT the FEDERAL government. The constitution is clearly written.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]*In b4 Bob gets called a fapping idiot dumbass f*cktard by Ollie*[/quote]
Davy, I didn`t start with the insults. I just turned them up a notch. But at last Altru is ATTEMPTING to make an argument. He`s doing a piss-poor job of it, but at least he`s trying.

On the other hand, what do you say to a dumb$#!+ f**ktard like SephirothA83 who doesn`t even try to refute anything I said or make a point of his own? I guess you just call him a dumb$#!+ f**ktard and move on...

0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>Since we don`t have a "well regulated militia," outside the military, at least, then you could argue that personal fire-arms are not permitted, except to members of the military.<<,


Not if you read the entire thing and stop trying to assign meaning beyond what is clearly written.

The amendment uses language that explains why people are allowed to keep bear arms. Because the government must have a well regulated militia, i.e. the army etc., we guarantee the people the right to keep and bear arms.

We could argue if the reason they made this guarantee was because they wanted the people to serve in the milita or because they wanted the people to be able to defend them selves from the government milita. But that argument has NOTHING to do with the fact that the right is given CLEARLY by the amendment.

0
Reply
Male 136
The courts interpret the constitution, and yes, they are the authority in place whose responsibility that is.

But lets not forget what the final check is in America, its the voice of the people. The courts can get it wrong, and theoretically the people can check any government branch.

Its not a matter of having it one way or another as some suggest, it is both ways at the exact same time in balance.

this has nothing to do with the video, just the most recent comments that i see.
0
Reply
Male 955
Oldollie sure is an angry idiot isn`t he.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]You`re a good 5 pages late davy.[/quote]
Damn.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
You`re a good 5 pages late davy.

[quote]bob, your comments are so astonishingly stupid, I don`t even know where to begin to answer them. You obviously don`t have the slightest clue what you`re talking about. [/quote]
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]WOW. Don`t go into an argument unarmed. Teach as many things (creation, evolution etc) as you can, because they are all important! but don`t go looking stupid. [/quote]
Teach them, yes, fine. Philosophy class would be a good platform, or a Politics class. I`m actually in favour of that, I would have enjoyed this kind of thing at school.

But don`t teach it in Science class, because it isn`t science.
0
Reply
Female 999
By the way, I`m sooo not voting for her...
0
Reply
Female 999
WOW. Don`t go into an argument unarmed. Teach as many things (creation, evolution etc) as you can, because they are all important! but don`t go looking stupid.
I`m NOT SAYING SHE`S A PLANT! but if she was, wouldn`t that be the best thing to say?
Personally I think she`s just a handicap and handicaps get the best spots in line at Disneyland.
Yay! first in line for Splash Mountain!!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
*In b4 Bob gets called a fapping idiot dumbass f*cktard by Ollie*
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]remember that they are strictly one-shot weapons, if you miss, or if there are two of them, you`re f**king DEAD! [/quote]
Terrible argument that leads to an arms race.

What if there are more than 12? I`d have to reload! Let`s make automatic rifles legal.
What if they charged me too quickly? Let`s legalise full auto fire.
What if there are more than 30? My magazine would run out. Let`s legalise mounting a GPMG on the back of my car.

[quote]Also, if I know I`ll be facing a stun gun, all I have to do is wear some metallic fabric to short it out, and once again, you`re f**king DEAD![/quote]

Again, terrible argument.
If I know you`re using bullets, all I have to do is wear Kevlar.
If I know you`re using armour-piercing rounds, all I have to do is layer steel onto my car.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]No, I believe the Constitution says what it says, not what nine old whores say it says. [/quote]
But then everyone`s interpretation of what it says is equally valid. You can`t base a legal system off that. Instead of nine old whores, you`re asserting that the Constitution says what YOU say it says.

"You have the right to bear arms". Fine. In what context? I have the right to bear arms too, if I join the British army.
Let`s get more pedantic. "Bear" means to carry. The 2nd amendment says nothing about using a gun. So you`re allowed to carry one but never use it. That`s an equally valid interpretation, it just differs from yours.

To make a consistent system, there has to be one authority that interprets the Constitution. I doubt anyone would agree it should be you.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Either accept that the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution, or don`t. But don`t pick and choose.[/quote]
Actually, I DON`T accept that SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution. They simply gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison, but it has no basis in the Constitution itself.

If you do accept this, then you give absolute unlimited dictatorial power to SCOTUS. They can "interpret" the Constitution to say anything they want, and there is no recourse whatsoever. Case in point, look at California. More than once, their Supreme Court has declared constitutional amendments to be unconstitutional. Checkmate.

No, I believe the Constitution says what it says, not what nine old whores say it says.
0
Reply
Male 294
[quote]Actually, there are. But only in maths.[/quote]

I`ll agree with you on proofs, but there isn`t absolute truths even in maths. Math is a priori. Look at the differences between Reman Calculus and normal calculus: both take very different assumptions (underpining Reman is the idea that there`s no such thing as continuity, while normal calculus demands that there be continuity). Both can be used validly.

At heart, all math is a priori, which means it must make assumptions of the truth of some things.

It`s just like what I said earlier about heliocentric theory and earth-centric theory. Both can be used to create a model of the universe that are equally valid, but heliocentric theory is used because it makes more sense, and the math is easier.
0
Reply
Female 2,289
she looks so embarrassed at the end lol
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Regarding your grammar reference, I don`t need some idiot commie English professor to torture the language till it says what he wants it to say. If I want to know what James Madison meant when he wrote the 2nd amendment, I`ll get it from Madison himself: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

I couldn`t help but note that this left-wing professor you cited works at the University of Illinois, the same august institution that employs Obama`s old buddy Bill Ayers, the America-hating unrepentant domestic terrorist.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Then you`re saying convicted felons should be allowed to own fire-arms?[/quote]
You really are a fapping idiot, aren`t you. Felons have lost that right as a result of DUE PROCESS ya dumb$#!+ f**ktard...

[quote]How `bout a "who`s got the bigger d*ck" contest?[/quote]
No fair. You spend all day pulling on yours.

[quote]You wouldn`t give a person on the street an RPG, would you?[/quote]
No, but I might SELL him one.

Regarding your fixation with stun guns, remember that they are strictly one-shot weapons, if you miss, or if there are two of them, you`re f**king DEAD! Also, if I know I`ll be facing a stun gun, all I have to do is wear some metallic fabric to short it out, and once again, you`re f**king DEAD! But if you`re stupid enough to bring a Tazer to a gunfight, be my guest.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Also, we don`t have to prove our fitness to own guns any more that we have to prove our innocence in criminal court.

"And I can list off a million incidents that show why that`s an outdated an idiotic policy."[/quote]
Fine if you want to live in a totalitarian $#!+hole where you have to prove your innocence, there are plenty of them out there -- Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Venezuela -- just pick one and GTFO!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
This wouldn`t have been the result of that Hallucination bout you described halfway through, would it?

Lol, on my way.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Yup, believe God created the universe... and things get sketchy after that!
I typically reflect Christian values because they`re closest to what I believe, but no longer consider myself a Christian.
SO when I say "God Bless" of something like that, I really mean "may all that is holy within the universe bless you" :)
0
Reply
Male 3,631
So you`re a Deist, eh?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Hey Altaru, good luck on the school and job front man! I mean it!
Before I took meds, I thought I `could handle it` then I had some massive hallucinations (for no particular reason, eh? no drugs or alohol involved) which changed my mind, um, my mind changed? Anyhow, those hallucinations were AWFUL!
So good luck! Sweet dreams and God speed!
And that goes for all IABers too!

I may disagree, but I commend your courage to be wrong! (lolz! It`s a j/k eh?)
0
Reply
Male 3,631
And if you`re anywhere near that different class of Human you speak of, you should have no problem!

Good luck.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Alright Altaru, well I think might be a characterization of yours that came about when things started to get heated - and making blanket character assaults on conservatives will not raise you above the level you`re quick to condemn as childish, right?

I don`t think this argument was about solutions in the first place.. so don`t feel bad about calling it a night! Glad I could help (lol) - hope you have blankets ;-)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
On that note... I think I`m going to leave. For real this time. I have to wake up at 6 in the morning for school, and from there I`m going to go try and get myself a job! I interviewed for it a little more than a week ago and the guy said he would have his decision made by the end of this week, so...

Wish me luck, guys! Hopefully I`ll be a hard-working member of society tomorrow!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Altaru, what meds you on dude?[/quote]
I`m not on meds. I have the mental fortitude to suppress my darker sides without outside aid.

I`m a different class of human being, in a lot of ways.

I`m a very confusing person, suffice to say.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Haha, I was wondering when you were going to catch that lol![/quote]
I do try to pay attention! lolz! I read it, blinked twice and then... LOLZ! ouch!
Literally!
Yup, been on Celexa before.
I`m on Cipralex now, but over the past 18 years have taken many others! One almost killed me! (no lolz! srsly!) Amiytriptoline and Welbutrine were probably the best for me, but for various reasons I can`t take them now.

Altaru, what meds you on dude?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]but when we get into the finer details of what IS a firearm, what qualifies as "sufficiently cognizant," and how many bullets you`re supposed to have in your chamber etc. it can get a little bit meticulous, if not outright arbitrary. That`s what begs the highly opinionated nature of such a discussion (barring RPG`s being considered firearms? I don`t know..)[/quote]
The thing is, their ENTIRE argument hinges on the "well, if WE can`t get guns, the criminals still will!" concept.

And while I`M trying to introduce solutions to that issue that could allow for a win-win, with better regulation and less illegal, they`re too busy trying to tear down everything I say to come up with something that WOULD work.

If I remember correctly... I think that IS a typical conservative trait...
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Aw. I missed out.

To clarify my earlier point, since it seems some people are incapable of understanding an analogy - my point was that the interpretation of the second amendment which allows personal firearms was clarified by a Supreme Court ruling (a few in fact). These rulings provide definitive statements about what is constitutional.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment, which clarify that personal firearms are your right, but ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on the 1st Amendment, which stated "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". That IS separation of church and state.

Either accept that the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution, or don`t. But don`t pick and choose.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Haha, I was wondering when you were going to catch that lol![/quote]
I do try to pay attention! lolz! I read it, blinked twice and then... LOLZ! ouch!
Literally!
Yup, been on Celexa before.
I`m on Cipralex now, but over the past 18 years have taken many others! One almost killed me! (no lolz! srsly!) Amiytriptoline and Welbutrine were probably the best for me, but for various reasons I can`t take them now.

Altaru, what meds you on dude?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
B) Again, taking my argument out of context and blowing it up. Is that a typical conservative trait, or just a "dumbass in general" trait?

NO we shouldn`t invade Mexico. I`m saying that in the same manner we would sic the Navy on pirates. I`m not saying we should invade another country and attack their military and civilians. We should work in tandem with their forces to root out the crime rings and eliminate them. But we need a better force doing it, since what we have now isn`t working out too well, is it?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]MEXICO! Mexico is where the vast majority of illegal guns are made (not counting those mad INSIDE the USA, eh?) OR smuggled INTO the USA from. So you believe the USA should invade Mexico?
GODDAM you`re a FASCIST![/quote]
A) I`m gonna need proof on that. I`m pretty sure most of the weapons being brought to the U.S. are BROUGHT from Mexico, not made there. And how many illegal weapons are made in the U.S.? You can say it all you want, but until you back it up...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Yeah Altaru, not only do I agree wholeheartedly with I-A-B`s need for an edit-button (along with a search-engine which crawls link descriptions, and orders them by date modified), but I don`t see why on it`s face anyone would argue with SOME regulation of firearms, be it criminality-based (which I believe both Cats and his 5 apprentices have conceded) or mentally evaluated.. but when we get into the finer details of what IS a firearm, what qualifies as "sufficiently cognizant," and how many bullets you`re supposed to have in your chamber etc. it can get a little bit meticulous, if not outright arbitrary. That`s what begs the highly opinionated nature of such a discussion (barring RPG`s being considered firearms? I don`t know..)
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I was using the term colloquially - Pity can be fun!
Look on the bright-side.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
vv Suicism pity-party is often confused with depression.
I only state what is happening to me. Pity is purely optional and frankly doesn`t help me at all.

In fact, one of the major obsticles in the path of a depressed person is the fear that people will not take them seriously. Thus depressed people have a HUGE suicide rate, probably higher than those killed bu legally owned guns (to try to remain on topic) In fact I`d bet on that...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
You know, when I was on Citalopram I thought I could handle 1 beer or so and see how it went; for the first few days, it just felt like my first 3. After about a week, 1 Zywiec porter gave me the most ACUTE panic attack since my last hospitalization - I don`t know how you`re doing it man...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]More-or-less, yes. It was a merit issue. And me trying to suggest solutions versus an army ready to tear them down, without suggesting a solution themselves... [/quote]

Just an addition... (IAB REALLY needs an edit button)

I`m trying to suggest solutions that would let people keep their guns, since I have every intention of carrying a hand-gun and a few knives when I`m slightly older (primarily because of where I want to live, but that`s beside the point), while trying to keep them out of the hands of criminals and people who are irresponsible and just not stable enough to handle them safely.

Again, my analogy: A doctor needs to prove he`s capable and responsible before he can take a knife to someone on the operating table, so why shouldn`t a man need to prove he`s capable and responsible before being allowed to handle a weapon, the primary function of which is to kill?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I must have come in halfway then @Altaru (granted, that was about 4 or 5 pages ago) - it seemed to start with constitutionality, and then depart from there. I`m not sure this would be the best forum - no conditions - for a merit argument of this caliber lol
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Haha, I was wondering when you were going to catch that lol!
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]I can haz Federalist paperzes too..[/quote]
LOLZ! ouch! Hahahaha! ouch!
(I`m laughing so hard my sides ache!)

[quote]since most illegal guns are imported by rings that operate from countries[/quote]
Oh GHOD! He just keeps doubling down on teh STUPID!
MEXICO! Mexico is where the vast majority of illegal guns are made (not counting those mad INSIDE the USA, eh?) OR smuggled INTO the USA from. So you believe the USA should invade Mexico?
GODDAM you`re a FASCIST!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
It`s ok 5Cats - just be sure to inform those on your list that as official apprentices, it is their 1st duty to organize and attend your pity-party. Just make sure to remind them to bring more Scotch.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
@Suicism

Okay, having gone back to your post concerning the point of the argument, constitution vs. merit...

More-or-less, yes. It was a merit issue. And me trying to suggest solutions versus an army ready to tear them down, without suggesting a solution themselves...

I brought Constitutionality back in when I was justifying my solution.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
See there - killing two birds with one stone. The speed of your fingers should stave off frostbite for at least another page or so...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
If I can keepup, it was my 1st entry onto this page (`bout halfway down as of the time of this posting - and likely 3/4 down by the time I press "Post Reply")
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I`m crying over the loss of your fingers to frostbite Altaru[/quote]
Yeah, thanks... I`m freezing. The heater isn`t working, and I`m having to type so frickin` fast to keep up with the people attacking me that I swear I`m generating mini-tornadoes...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]5Cats - you shouldn`t be mixing SSRI`s with alcohol.[/quote]
Yup, you got me there! I also have IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) which causes me no end of pain. The SSRIs help me sleep :) which is a great help against IBS
(which medication does nothing to help me, I tried all three! and yup, there`s exactly 3...)
(I was off work for 3 & 1/2 years because of the pain of IBS... then one day, it receded! Not `gone` but back to a tolerable level. It`s related to stress, and depressed people have LOTS of stress...)
So my brainz betray me and my intestines hate me. If I didn`t have cats I`d be lost.
(sry to be Captain TMI, eh?)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Now reducto-ad-hominem.[/quote]
They started it!

See, I can act like a child if you guys want me too...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I`m crying over the loss of your fingers to frostbite Altaru
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]So are we back to debating constitutionality now?[/quote]
I`m sorry, I just sort of skipped over your previous posts... Could you summarize what you`ve said?

I`m going to go ahead and take a leaf out of my opponents books and fail to read a lot of posts before posting what I want to say...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Now reducto-ad-hominem.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]If someones life is in danger they have every right to defend themselves in any matter possible, you fascist[/quote]
Oh great... Now I have TWO people calling me a fascist, ONE person calling me a conservative, and I`m sure countless other people are throwing out their obnoxious little insults too.

They don`t hurt me, because I know that while you`re busy crying over the loss of your toys, I`m out looking for the safety of the people at large.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
So are we back to debating constitutionality now?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]So, Altaru, you think the ARMY should patrol the streets of the USA?[/quote]
And you`re taking my arguments out of context and blowing them out of proportion.

I said to fight the illegal trade in [insert thing harmful to society at large] coming from other countries, since most illegal guns are imported by rings that operate from countries with much less-strict laws. They are "invaders," coming in with weapons and intent to kill American citizens, therefor Congress has the right to use military force against them. As it is, the CIA, DEA, and all those other agencies are barely able to make a DENT in the trade.

Jeez, I feel like I`m repeating myself because people can`t read... That`s NOT a good thing...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I can haz Federalist paperzes too..
0
Reply
Male 32
"Ease of use should not dictate the right to take another human`s life, in ANY context."
Doesn`t matter. If someones life is in danger they have every right to defend themselves in any matter possible, you fascist
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I hope they`re as excited as you are..
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Hooray! I can haz minions!



Soon, SOON I can haz cheezburger too!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
When time is of the essence in a self-defense scenario, I`d have to say your argument for restraint does not apply.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Why should you have to stun him instead of shoot him? Stun guns are not easy to operate I will have you know[/quote]
Ease of use should not dictate the right to take another human`s life, in ANY context.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
5Cats - you shouldn`t be mixing SSRI`s with alcohol.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]when it comes to the illegal gun trade, we need to bring the soldiers home to fight the enemy on our own turf[/quote]
So, Altaru, you think the ARMY should patrol the streets of the USA?
I take back my accusation that you are a "liberal" ok?
You are in fact a FASCIST, go LOOK IT UP!
I`ve had it with you cousin, you`re on par with goaliejerry and madest now. Gloves off, prepare your a** for a smack-down...
(unless you take yor meds, really dude, why do you ignore my pleas for normalicy?)
0
Reply
Male 3,631
No - the "young man" reference was the one that tipped me off ;-)

Considered it *pats on back*

and yes 5Cats, you can haz fallowers.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
vv Nice ZEN there Phranky!

vv Thank you @notTHATbored, you make a highly valid point which no doubt will be ignored... by the leftists here :P

vv MY apprentice? I can haz followers? LMAO! But yeah Suicism I`m not alone in my beliefs, eh? Do you mean notTHATbored? Phranky? OldOllie? (lmao!) or Hudini (who lives 1500 miles away from me). In any case, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Ok, Alturu. From a moderator`s standpoint, I must ask you: are you employing the idea that were we to interpret other things in the context of the time (this being late 1700`s), that much of what we hold sacred would be thrown out the window because there were elements at work which do not conform to our modern ideals of egalitarian decency?

If so, that would qualify as a move to reduce the argument of gun-rights to its merit, rather than one of constitutionality. A little bit of a derailment, and from that point forward, I think you`d just be agreeing to disagree with 5Cats and his apprentice. Do I have it right?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Um, when did you offer that? Please be specific, you know how few braincells I have...[/quote]
See:

[quote]And, I`ve said before, when it comes to the illegal gun trade, we need to bring the soldiers home to fight the enemy on our own turf, rather than sending them abroad to help pad the politicians pockets and cause problems...[/quote]

And also...

[quote]The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;[/quote]
To justify fighting off the "invading" illegal traders.

And yes, I DO know how few brain cells you have. I just continue throwing intelligence at you hoping it`ll help you grow a few more. Too bad human biology doesn`t work that way, huh?
0
Reply
Male 32
cool strawman argument there buddy. I hate women and minorities. very classy.

Also i KNOW that more regulation doesn`t equate to lesser crime. The UK for example banned firearms and yet their violent crime rate skyrocketed and criminals there still get their hands on firearms illegally. YOUR argument is nothing but drivel repeated ad nausem by the Brady Campaign and has no bases on fact. you should probably read up on their latest donation reports and how they are trying to get more funding. no one believes the sh*t they are peddling anymore.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Altaru "Show me some stats to back up your claims. This is something that every gun-f*cking nut loves to tout. But I can show you statistic of how many people have been murdered by gunfire.

10,886 in 2008 alone.

Where`s yours?

Who`s to say the home invader you shot would have killed you? And you could just as easily have shot him with a stun-gun to take him down with a much lower risk of killing him, in which case he escapes his prison sentence."

Ugh. First off how many of those murders were committed with illegally owned weaopns? I would like to know. Secondly, to bad if the man breaking in your house wasn`t going to kill you. You have no way of knowing that and he should have known that he was putting him or herself in danger when they broke into a home and tresspassed in the first place. Why should you have to stun him instead of shoot him? Stun guns are not easy to operate I will have you know. I have the right to defend myself to m
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Again, I offered a solution to that problem (criminals are already getting their guns from illegal sources.)[/quote]
Um, when did you offer that? Please be specific, you know how few braincells I have...

[quote]Because you can`t actually come up with anything intelligent to say against them?[/quote]
Noooo, because I`ve spoken (well, typed) to you as IF you were an intelligent human being, but you refuse to listen. Thus I repeat, for the 3rd time: dude, take your meds! you`re only embarrassing yourself.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote](am ignoring Altaru`s recital of liberal excuses...)[/quote]
Because you can`t actually come up with anything intelligent to say against them?

I see how it is. Typical 5BrainCells, and there he goes again, killing off what little he has left...
0
Reply
Male 62
When I think of drinking too much Scotch, and over filling my pipe, I simply remember what was taught me:

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]You cannot make it harder for people to get firearms and expect that the crime rate will decline, because criminals are already getting their guns from illegal sources.[/quote]
Again, I offered a solution to that problem. But instead of coming up with solutions, you continue to act like there is no solution and use that as the basis for the rest of your argument.

You rest your case on shaky ground. You are RELYING on the idea that, even with stricter regulation, the criminals will still get guns illegally. However, if a solution were found to that problem, your entire argument would rest on a single, controversially worded amendment stating that members of a MILITIA have the right to bear arms.

I`m also going to say that, in context of the time, women and blacks shouldn`t be allowed to own fire-arms, since they were hardly considered "people" back then, but you won`t stop them, will you?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]one of the instances this cop mentioned was going on Domestic Violence calls in Toronto...[/quote]
What kind of scotch you drinking? I`m a scothc (hic! lolz) fan myself! I got some Laphroaig 10 years on the go (YUM!) and some Cattos 12 (meh!). Am also fond of Bells, Teachers and (in a pinch) Grants. I like most single malts a LOT! lolz!
We can`t get Cutty Shark or Black & White in Manitoba anymore... :(
Strangely; I`m allgergic to Ballentines and Johnny Walker...

... back on topic! (lolz!) In Manitoba ALL domestic violence cases are ASSUMED to involve weapons and are treated as such. It`s one of the "false flags" I point out to dispute ANY usefulness of the LRR...

(am ignoring Altaru`s recital of liberal excuses...)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Well, first off the legal definition of the militia is every able bodied man over the age of 17. [/quote]
Depends where you check. Some also say that it`s a military force composed of ordinary citizens who are called out for service only in times of emergency. Basically, the National Guard.

[quote]You`re a tool and a moron.[/quote]
*AHEM*

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and [quote]united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.[/quote]
See, I, too, have the ability to cut and paste sections from documents.

The difference is, I don`t leave out the parts I don`t wanna read.
0
Reply
Male 32
I`m all for educating people on firearms safety, but more regulations is where i draw the line. You cannot make it harder for people to get firearms and expect that the crime rate will decline, because criminals are already getting their guns from illegal sources.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Phranky, see how Altaru KEEPS ON POSTING his hateful skreed? Even after he laments how people post hatred here (another thread, I know)? After he says he`s "out" he comes back "in"! It`s his pattern.
I`m really saddened to know he`s manic-depressive, it hurts me to see others wih my affliction suffering so (I`m uni-polar depressive, I don`t get manic (much) but I get really depressed :()

As for the LRR: it`s made more `criminals` than it`s prevented. Even someone from Toronto should understand that criminals DON`T register their weapons!
(PS: I actually am FOR the handgun registry, which has been in place since 1936 (iirc). I AM OPPOSED to politicians and the Police Chief Of Toronto telling LIES to support this bastard child!)
Like I say, all those BILLIONS could have been better spent...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
You`re crying because you think I want to take away your toys. You`re not only wrong, but being the typical gun-nut ass and screaming "YOU CAN`T WAKE AWAY MY GUNS" over every logical argument I put forth.

I just say we need better education and regulation behind the ownership of tools specially designed to kill things. Is it so wrong to want people to know just what they`re holding in their hands? Is it so wrong to make sure that people know how to properly care for and handle something that could kill them or someone else if simply HELD the wrong way?
0
Reply
Male 62
@5Cats


Oh yeah..one of the instances this cop mentioned was going on Domestic Violence calls in Toronto, they check the address, and it immediately connects to the gun registry and tells the cops if there are firearms registered at that address.

His wife was a trauma nurse who sometimes goes on calls...when the ambulance gets sent out to an address...firearms registered at that address come in and a different protocol ensues...ambulance must now be accompanied by police....

Sheesh...need more Scotch
0
Reply
Male 32
Well, first off the legal definition of the militia is every able bodied man over the age of 17.
second off "The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
You`re a tool and a moron.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]>I ignore the fact that guns save more than they kill [/quote]
I`m also going to attack this point again...

Show me some stats to back up your claims. This is something that every gun-f*cking nut loves to tout. But I can show you statistic of how many people have been murdered by gunfire.

10,886 in 2008 alone.

Where`s yours?

That claim isn`t backed up by stats, facts, or ANYTHING substantial for that matter.

Who`s to say the home invader you shot would have killed you? And you could just as easily have shot him with a stun-gun to take him down with a much lower risk of killing him, in which case he escapes his prison sentence.

You claim I argue based off emotion... I argue for solutions to problems. You`re arguing that the problem doesn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 62
@5Cats

Yea...I was pretty against the long gun registry myself for a long while...just another Jean Chretian Liberal waste of money...see we`re both Canucks and the same age.

I got owned in a great discussion the other day, as Altaru says, not enough characters, but this cop in a bar in the Beach in Toronto totally changed my mind, yes, he said it was critically flawed, but you don`t toss the baby out with the bathwater ( i know that means nothing) but he went trhought some sceniors(sp) in how it\s "supposed" to work....and I tell you, in my own opinion, I was convinced and changed my mind, I`m always open_minded (as we always like to think).

So 5Cats, who`s it gonna be.....Smitherman or Ford...I`m going for Ford??

`-)

BTW - be nicer to Altaru...seems like a very bright person! (wagging my finger at you)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I do it to myself...

[quote]>Hasn`t read the Federalist Papers, where it says that the RKBR is an INDIVIDUAL right, and that It is meant to be a fail safe in case the gub`ment becomes tyrannical, which would probably start with the banning of firearms.[/quote]
Show me where.

The only mention I know of, is in 46, in which he states that a militia (a MILITIA, regulated under the smaller sub-governments) that has weapons could fight off a coup by the main U.S. Military.

In other words, he was stating that the smaller state governments may form militias with officers, etc. to fight an attempted military coup by the Federal army.

Nothing about individual rights there.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
{quote]We had 3 young RCMP officers in a remote area approach some dudes farm...he freaked and killed all...[/quote]
And THAT @Phrankly is why the Long Gun Registry does NOTHING to prevent crime. It is just a multi-BILLION dollar pork-fest which actually ties up police resources and PREVENTS them from, y`know, solving crimes and stuff.
There`s 100 ways those billions could have been spent to ACTUALLY REDUCE CRIME IN CANADA but noooo! Getting Liberals (capital L the political party eh?) re-elected is MUCH more important to the left than, you know, civil rights and stuff...

Hudini12345 you`re doing a fine job young man! Keep up the good work!
0
Reply
Male 32
lol. You don`t have the energy to argue with idiots?
You do realize what you`ve just done is akin to stamping your feet on the ground and saying "I`m right and your wrong because i say so"
and you`re wrong, making it harder to get firearms just keep righteous people from getting them.
You`re arguments aren`t based of common sense, they are based off your emotions.
0
Reply
Male 62
Sheesh - there is an awful lot of flaming going on here...if you`re going to comment, have an argument or position...name-calling and labelling is so lame and passe and no-one reads it....

Thursday night in rainy Toronto...only one thing to do...more Scotch!
0
Reply
Male 32
>Thinks the UN is a legitimate force, instead of the useless, spineless, pile of sh*t that it is
>Hasn`t read the Federalist Papers, where it says that the RKBR is an INDIVIDUAL right, and that It is meant to be a fail safe in case the gub`ment becomes tyrannical, which would probably start with the banning of firearms.
>Thinks I put my real info on my profile

0
Reply
Male 3,482
I don`t have enough energy to argue with two idiots here, my fingers are freezing because the heater in my room isn`t working right now...

I`m done. I`ve stated my case, the COMMON SENSE case.

I`ll leave it at that.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Christ, the 1000 character limit is catching me today...

[quote]YEs Altaru, and that "good reason" was: you keep PROVING you`re a leftist, knee-jerk libtard with literally every post!
So don`t mistake my ceasing to rebuke you as "win" oh no! It means I no longer care what you imagine yourself to be, you are, in FACT a libtard.
Period.[/quote]
I say "for good reason" after I proved that I agreed with more than a few conservatives on more than a few issues a few political posts back. In other words, you`re not only WRONG, but I`ve been insulted by BOTH sides of the fence, because NEITHER can find an actual flaw with my Common Sense arguments, and so start calling me the other because they don`t want me on their side. Both hate me, and I love it because it means I`m right.
0
Reply
Male 62
The problem with firearms is really not with criminals...it`s with the people that own them....they get drunk, they get into fights, and they start blowing people away.

They go to work, their children find them and kill each other.

They get fired from work, their GF or BF dumps them and they blow their head off.

They get sad, depressed, and have the means to blow their brains out (Kurt Kobain).

The simple availability of lethal weapons is crazy...sorry...different culture...but there is a place and reason for firearms, not just a shiny thing you play with a keep in a drawer for your child to find.

My two cents...opinions are like noses and everyone`s got one...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]How is it hypocritical to laugh at a politician not knowing the First Amendment...[/quote]
Um, the DEMOCRAT didn`t know waht was ACTAULLY in the first amendment... NOT O`Donnell...

[quote]Then you`re saying convicted felons should be allowed to own fire-arms?[/quote]
You conveniently IGNORE what else the poster said: that it`s your righ until it` PROVEN you don`t deserve it (I praphrase, for you nitpickers out there). My guess is even the NRA, no, check that ESPECIALLY the NRA thinks convicted felons should not `bear arms` OK?

Seriously, from one depresse person to another, take your meds and sleep it off Altaru.



0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]>Doesn`t realize i haven`t been on this account in years and I`m now 22.[/quote]
Apparently doesn`t realize that the stated age on his profile says 18.

[quote]>Thinks that I should have to prove my eligibility to express a RIGHT.[/quote]
Apparently doesn`t realize that it`s a controversial right that is NOT in fact included in the Human Rights list, therefor must be interpreted from the U.S. Constitution and is still an amendment that is being debated and interpreted as we debate.

The SCoTUS may have sided with you a few times before, but they over-turned precedent in doing so and might just do so again.

And, again, you`ll b*tch like a little kid screaming for his toys.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]And is it a bad thing to say that human life is precious and important? Every human being is a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister,[/quote]
Altaru, are you saying you`re opposed to abortion? lolz! Libtard!
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Oh, pulling the liberal card here are you? I`ll tell you what, 5BrainCells stopped that sh*t a while back, for good reason...[/quote]
YEs Altaru, and that "good reason" was: you keep PROVING you`re a leftist, knee-jerk libtard with literally every post!
So don`t mistake my ceasing to rebuke you as "win" oh no! It means I no longer care what you imagine yourself to be, you are, in FACT a libtard.
Period.
0
Reply
Male 62
Ofcourse criminals never register their guns...but the ones they steal from legitimate owner and are registered can now be traced and tracked.

I`m at a loss now, but in Canada, with our controversial long gun registry...the police just solved a multilpe murder by using the gun registry and tracking a gun...I will look up and provide later.

Gun registry is not to harass farmers, hunters etc....

Leave you with this before I find and post...gun registry...man is conficted of his 3rd offence for assault, whether it`s domestic or personal...cops run his name through the registry..."...yea...he`s got an hunting rifle and a shotgun registered at this address...use extra caution."

We had 3 young RCMP officers in a remote area approach some dudes farm...he freaked and killed all three offficers...kids really in their 20`s and 30`s...if they could have run this before, maybe it would`ve saved them..guy wasn`t a criminal....but if he didn`t register,
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]What`s the difference? A rifle is a firearm. An RPG is a ROCKETLAUNCHER. K? You`re failing in every way here dude! Grammer? FAIL! Basic knowledge of weapons? FAIL! [/quote]

A) Grammatically, I stood beside the opinion of an English professor who wrote a paper concerning the wording of the 2nd amendment for the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case. He was with the dissenting opinion, that those idiot rednecks were trying to change the original meaning of the amendment to suit THEIR needs. Unfortunately, those rednecks won by a slim margin...

B) That was a HYPERBOLE. In other words, you just English: FAILED.

How about a better analogy: You wouldn`t trust a surgeon to operate on you without a license proving that he`s certified and responsible, right? Why would you trust an average person to walk out on the streets with something that could kill you in the blink of an eye without having to prove they can handle the responsibility.
0
Reply
Male 32
>doesn`t realize I`m calling him a child because he doesn`t understand how the world works and thinks with his emotion instead of logic as seen here: "say this AFTER watching someone you know get shot on the streets for no reason because of a gang-war, or drug-war, or whatever the hell it was."
>Doesn`t realize i haven`t been on this account in years and I`m now 22.
>Thinks that I should have to prove my eligibility to express a RIGHT.
lolkay
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]You wouldn`t give a person on the street an RPG, would you? What`s the difference?[/quote]
@Altaru, word of advice? Just STFU and go lick your wounds.
What`s the difference? A rifle is a firearm. An RPG is a ROCKETLAUNCHER. K? You`re failing in every way here dude! Grammer? FAIL! Basic knowledge of weapons? FAIL!

From one depressed person to another: Dude! You`re manic! Go take your meds and sleep it off! (I`m unipolar depressive, eh?)
0
Reply
Male 62
@Altaru

Hahahaha...as a Canadian with strict gun control laws....I`m 47 and have never ever fired a firearm, I heard a comedian once say, "....the right to bear arms....that was 300 years ago....we don`t know what they meant...how do we know they didn`t mean the right to wear sleeveless shirts!!"

Guffaw!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]If you make guns illegal, the only ones who will have them will be the criminals who are ALREADY breaking the law.
Your emotions are taking over your logic again, you child. [/quote]
You don`t read much, do you?

I suggested a solution to the illegal gun trade problem earlier as well.

And seeing as how

A) I`m older than you, and

B) I`m not whining like a b*tch who just wants his toys

I`d say I`M not the child here...
0
Reply
Male 62
@Altaru

As a Canadian, I haven`t, and will never tolerate America bashing, the people of America are some of the nicest, most self effacing, bend over backwards people to help you on the planet....and the funny thing is - they will!!!

I may consider Bush, Cheney, Rumslfed war criminals, as the rest of the world does, but each of us all ends up, no matter waht your leaning is, electing gov`s that many detest.

It`s scary, America has this ultra-right wing religious movement/powerhouse - that are trying to rule with faith rather than reason....oh well...for the days of Roosevelt and the space program, where America represented all that was good in humanity - now, we don`t even posess the tech to go back to the moon - which accoring to this authour whom I can`t remember, uses this as the litmus that America, and hence Western society, is on the decline, "in thirty more years...there will be no living humans that have set foot on another planet...they`ll all
0
Reply
Male 32
I am also a son/daughter/father/mother of someone, and I have every right to life anyone else does. I choose to protect my right to life by carrying and owning a multitude of firearms, of which, it is none of your business to which i should be "allowed" to keep.
Stun Guns are illegal where I live.
You seem to miss the FACT that guns save lives.
Just because some piece of sub-human GARBAGE chooses to abuse the rights that we all have, DOES NOT mean that the rest of us should suffer the consequences. If you make guns illegal, the only ones who will have them will be the criminals who are ALREADY breaking the law.
Your emotions are taking over your logic again, you child.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]My origional point was YOU think pissing on RIGHT WING politicians is OK.[/quote]
You have NO CLUE what a "pissing contest" is, do you?

How `bout a "who`s got the bigger d*ck" contest?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]>I have no interest in the well being of those who use guns for protection[/quote]
See:

[quote]I`m not saying take the guns away, for f*cks sake, I`m saying that you should have to PROVE you`re responsible enough to handle something that was MADE to kill.[/quote]
In other words, you can have guns for self-defense. I just want to know that they`re for self-defense and not going Columbine.

Members of the military have to show that they are stable and responsible before being allowed continued handling of a weapon.

So people shouldn`t be held up to a standard?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
vv Was that there a rhetorical question Altaru? Y`all aren`t making much sense eh?
My origional point was YOU think pissing on RIGHT WING politicians is OK.
And you continue to prove ME right! er, correct! lolz!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]>I keep eating everything the Brady Campaign (who lie and make up figures to feed their hate machine) has feed me [/quote]
Never heard of it. I run on pure common sense. Something a lot of people seem to be lacking these days.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Ah! @Altaru thus PROVES my POINT!
Oh teh hypocricay! [/quote]
How is it hypocritical to laugh at a politician not knowing the First Amendment, but to think a political pissing-contest is stupid?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I don`t have to prove SH*T. The right to bare arms is just that. A RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM ANYONE.[/quote]
Then you`re saying convicted felons should be allowed to own fire-arms?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]The difference is, THIS post, is something I can laugh at, because it`s a politician being a dumbass[/quote]
Ah! @Altaru thus PROVES my POINT!
Oh teh hypocricay!
(sry for multiple posts, I read the back pages, then post when I can`t stand it anymore! lolz!)
(I`ve tried saving it up, but when you go from page 3 to page 2, it removes what you`ve typed!)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]>I have no interest in logic, i am merely a liberal who goes off emotion[/quote]
Oh, pulling the liberal card here are you? I`ll tell you what, 5BrainCells stopped that sh*t a while back, for good reason And another dumbass, not long ago, was calling me a conservative. You don`t know jack-sh*t about me, so why don`t you reserve the INSULTS for when you have a f*cking clue?

And is it a bad thing to say that human life is precious and important? Every human being is a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a mother, a father, a husband, a wife, a friend... Or some variation/combination of all the above.

[quote]>I ignore the fact that guns save more than they kill[/quote]
Know what else saves lives? Stun-guns. And with a much lower collateral rate. Also, say this AFTER watching someone you know get shot on the streets for no reason because of a gang-war, or drug-war, or whatever the hell it was.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]So I totally agree that she`s a dumb moron that shouldn`t be allowed to live[/quote]
Typical liberal! Are y`all paying attention to WHO (the left) is advocating violence and death? And WHO (the right) is trying to be reasonable?
Hummm?
0
Reply
Male 32
*BY ANYONE
whoops
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]It says nothing about personal firearms.- almightybob1[/quote]
Um, the "right to keep and bear arms" means ARMS! FIREARMS! ANY KIND! Talk about trying to split hairs a-bob1!~ Holy sematics! lolz!
It doesn`t say "right to bear arms made by Smith & Wesson" either, OK? Does that mean the courts & laws should outlaw S&W products? Srsly!

@dang007 you`re doing a FINE job my newfound friend! Keep the faith bro!
0
Reply
Male 32
"I`m not saying take the guns away, for f*cks sake, I`m saying that you should have to PROVE you`re responsible enough to handle something that was MADE to kill"
I don`t have to prove SH*T. The right to bare arms is just that. A RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM ANYONE.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Phrankly...[/quote]
Haa, I see what you did there, lol.

[quote]I`m getting to feel sory for the American population on a daily basis....she is beyond pathetic...[/quote]

I know what you mean... Sad thing is, I have to live here `til I`ve saved up enough money to get out...
0
Reply
Male 32
"they`re f*cking human beings who deserved a lot better than a piece of hot, spinning metal ending their life."
>I have no interest in logic, i am merely a liberal who goes off emotion
>I ignore the fact that guns save more than they kill
>I keep eating everything the Brady Campaign (who lie and make up figures to feed their hate machine) has feed me
>I have no interest in the well being of those who use guns for protection
cool story bro
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I`m not saying take the guns away, for f*cks sake, I`m saying that you should have to PROVE you`re responsible enough to handle something that was MADE to kill. Surgeons have to prove that they are stable and responsible enough to handle a persons life on the operating table. Why shouldn`t you have to prove you`re responsible and stable enough to handle a weapon on the streets?

[quote]What does that have anything to do with what I said?[/quote]
It doesn`t. I wasn`t talking to you, f*cktard. I was talking to OldOllie. Not everything`s about your dumb ass.
0
Reply
Male 62
Phrankly...I`m getting to feel sory for the American population on a daily basis....she is beyond pathetic....what the ferk happened to the US....the greatest nation on the earth is turning into a bad episode of, "Caligula".
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]It`s not YOUR right to judge what I have/want Altaru. It explicitly states in the 2nd Amendment that I have the right to keep and bear arms.[/quote]
Dumbass. Try reading my link for the context behind what it actually says.

It`s says the people of a well-regulated militia have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court, in a 5/4 (read: VERY close) decision changed that.

[quote]In fact, the deaths due to long guns per year have been decreasing since the early 80`s. More people each year drown than are killed by long guns.[/quote]
And I don`t give a f*ck WHAT they`re getting killed by, they`re f*cking human beings who deserved a lot better than a piece of hot, spinning metal ending their life.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
omg i could not keep watching this boring sh*t, just on the hope that she may in the 5 minutes eventually end up being laughed at...
0
Reply
Male 32
What does that have anything to do with what I said?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Then this God of yours learned all the laws of the universe (in the dark and without any teacher) and collects everything in the universe, compacts it into a tiny compressed singularity and in an instant, places everything in it`s predetermined place with a violent explosion we call the big bang? Thereby destroying his all knowing self?[/quote]
@madest you`re just too stupid for words!

#1 God ALWAYS existed, just like the Big Bang eh? What`s the difference between BBT (Big Bang Theory) and God? Zilch.
#2 HE didn`t "learn" anything! He CREATED you fool! And where does it say this is the first universe HE created? FUNQ!
#3 "collects everything in the universe" um, he CREATED the universe, not collected FAIL!
#4 HE destroys himself? Um, wtf are you smoking dude? Oh yeah, I read your bio :P
You`re stupider today than normal madest, I suggest you cut and run! Or delete your 5:554:42 post, as is your habit...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;[/quote]
Straight from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I see why they wanted to regulate the power of the government to use the military to enforce laws, and I support it, but in effect all these drug and arms dealers, smugglers, etc. could be considered "invaders" that need to be "repelled" for the common good.

The fact is, SWAT and the CIA and the DEA and all those organizations don`t even make a DENT in the illegal [insert something dangerous to the general public here] trade. Something bigger needs to be done.

And while you`re busy assuming the worst, that the government is gonna take that and establish some martial law system, the worst is slowly drawing near on the OTHER end of the spectrum and nothing`s getting done to stop it...
0
Reply
Male 32
It`s not YOUR right to judge what I have/want Altaru. It explicitly states in the 2nd Amendment that I have the right to keep and bear arms. Guess what, the Supreme Court Agrees with me. Your opinion means sh*t. Also, an "assault rifle" is a select fire weapon that shoots an intermediate cartridge. Seeing as Select fire weapons are mostly HEAVILY regulated in the US, most people don`t have them. In fact, the deaths due to long guns per year have been decreasing since the early 80`s. More people each year drown than are killed by long guns.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
As for Second Amendment grammar, bias plays a part here. It`s been a subject of heated debate ever since it suddenly exploded into being controversial. And it was controversial at first over matters of having a gun for self-defense. You don`t need a f*cking assault rifle for self-defense.

Also, I could say the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a modifier of the "Well regulated Militia," in which "people" is referring to those in the Militia. You know, as it was originally intended back in the times it was written.

Link arguing grammar and context for ya...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Again you show your ignorance of and disregard for the law. Read this.[/quote]
I don`t need to know the law to know that that ISN`T F*CKING WORKING.

Besides, it`s not exactly an issue that deals with local traders. It`s an international deal, and since the foreign nations won`t handle the problem, we need to before it gets completely out of control.

[quote]Also, we don`t have to prove our fitness to own guns any more that we have to prove our innocence in criminal court.[/quote]
And I can list off a million incidents that show why that`s an outdated an idiotic policy.

In the same manner that you have to test a doctor to see if they are fit to operate on a human being, I say you need to test a person to see if they are fit to handle something that could kill countless people in the blink of an eye.

You wouldn`t give a person on the street an RPG, would you? What`s the difference?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
@vorpalsword

I haven`t put anything through a thesaurus program since I was trying to find a synonym for your mom - I found two entries: one under `S`, and the other under `W`.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Altaru "And, I`ve said before, when it comes to the illegal gun trade, we need to bring the soldiers home to fight the enemy on our own turf, rather than sending them abroad to help pad the politicians pockets and cause problems..."

Again you show your ignorance of and disregard for the law. Read this.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Altru, that was the FAIL of the day. I just cited specific rules of grammar, and you came back and said, in essence, that you should be able to make up your own rules, and that they are just as valid. Well you can`t just make up your own rules of grammar any more than you can make up your own rules of math or physics. Since you are obviously ignorant of the rules of grammar, here`s a reference. READ IT before you show your ass again.

Also, we don`t have to prove our fitness to own guns any more that we have to prove our innocence in criminal court. It is up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is unfit to own a firearm. It`s called "due process." Google it.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Someone who interupts doesnt know what they are talking about, have already felt that way in arguements!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I`m FOR ownership of personal fire-arms. Just nothing that could be taken into the streets and easily snuff countless people before a response could be organized.

And I also say the people who want guns should have to prove they`re responsible and stable enough to own them, and what they intend to do with them. There are other countries that have a higher rate of gun ownership than the U.S., while still having lower rates of gun crime. It`s because the people who own guns have proven themselves responsible and have made clear their intent with said weapons. And since everyone owns a gun, the bad guys don`t want to screw with them.

And, I`ve said before, when it comes to the illegal gun trade, we need to bring the soldiers home to fight the enemy on our own turf, rather than sending them abroad to help pad the politicians pockets and cause problems...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]"shall not be infringed." [/quote]
I could use the same "grammar" against you.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the same sense, I could actually argue that what it REALLY means has nothing to do with personal gun-ownership, but instead with the right of the people to organize a "well-regulated militia." "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" could be referring to those people in the militia.

Thank you, try again.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
...counties, nor the cities.

Also, the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the people to keeping and bearing only arms that are inferior in capability to those carried by the military. The continental army at the time were issued smooth-bore muskets, while the typical citizen-farmer owned a long rifle. A group of citizens so armed could easily cut down twice their number of soldiers in a open field.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Since we don`t have a "well regulated militia," outside the military, at least, then you could argue that personal fire-arms are not permitted, except to members of the military.[/quote]
Once upon a time, grammar was considered to be as serious and exacting a science as math and physics. The opening clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is a nonrestrictive aposition -- "nonrestrictive" meaning that it has absolutely no effect on the meaning of rest of the sentence.

Also note that it does NOT begin with "Congress shall make no law..." but rather, it ends with "shall not be infringed."

While Congress shall make no law regarding, say, the establishment of religion, the states were perfectly free to do so. However, NO ONE is permitted to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms -- not the Congress, nor the states, nor the
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Also, I`m just going to say this when it comes to education:

There needs to be some degree of consistency between school districts throughout the ENTIRE country. Otherwise, some districts could develop lower standards and their students could fall behind early in life.

I`m not saying that having heavy testing and regulation all that (like we have now) is the way to go, but having local school districts determine what they want to teach could lead to a lot of problems.

Think about it: a GED isn`t worth as much as an actual diploma in the eyes of a potential employer, so if certain school districts have different standards, don`t you think that could have a similar effect on the students future?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]How so? Unless you mean they can keep and bear but not own. An idea akin to saying you can consume beer but you can not use your mouth and throat to swallow it. On it`s face idiotic and not what is meant.[/quote]
The same amendment also alludes to a "well regulated militia."

Since we don`t have a "well regulated militia," outside the military, at least, then you could argue that personal fire-arms are not permitted, except to members of the military.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]How does a local school teaching an idea that MANY religions of the world teach establish a single state religion?[/quote]
Soo... All of a sudden local districts are immune to the influence of the Constitution, the almighty Law of the Land in the U.S.?

And teaching Creation as a science would be

A) teaching pseudo-science, which is destructive to the students, and

B) establishing those religions that believe Creation to be more "credible" than those that don`t.
0
Reply
Male 1,256
Classic.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Fact: Some people have eye colour that does not match their parents.
Fact: The genes from both parents are passed on to the child.
Fact: Recessive genes as well as dominant genes are passed on to the child.

Revised theory: Eye colour is hereditary, including recessive genes, which can occasionally manifest in a child.[/quote]
Or, you know, sleeping with the milk man, lol.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Similarly the second amendment does not certify the right for the public to own guns<<<


How so? Unless you mean they can keep and bear but not own. An idea akin to saying you can consume beer but you can not use your mouth and throat to swallow it. On it`s face idiotic and not what is meant. No need to find "less flowery" language to explain it. The whole idea that the constitution was written in flowery language that somehow hides the meaning to all except those that read letters and other writings of the founders is similarly idiotic. The constitution was written to define clearly the role and powers of the government. People voted on this and agreed to it. To try and paint it flowery so that new meaning can be given to it is absurd.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]You can`t put a quote AND a link or image in the same post.[/quote]
Yeah, I know... I keep forgetting, though. It sucks, and it makes my posts look like a jumbled mess...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]you`re dead wrong. The "establishment" clause was adopted to protect the CHURCH from undue influence by the GOVERNMENT![/quote]
Considering that, at the time, the King of England was the Head of the Church, and they wanted to prevent that, I`d say it was as much to keep the church out of government as to keep the government out of the church.

The basic idea that I pick up from it, is that it intended for religion to be a matter between a Man and his God. In other words, the government (which, by the way, effectively has to approve teaching schedules and all that in public schools) should keep itself out of religion, and leave that to the church.

The government needs to stay out of religion. Creationism and ID are religious ideas. The government needs to stay out of them. No matter how you think of it, ID should NOT be taught in public schools.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
You can`t put a quote AND a link or image in the same post.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote">Altaru you dirty hypocrite! You think that way because it supports your opinion: that right-thinking people are teh stupid. Even if what they say is TRUE.
Several flame-war pages later, have you revised your opinion yet?[/quote">
You have to understand. There`s a HUGE difference between this post, and this post.

The difference is, THIS post, is something I can laugh at, because it`s a politician being a dumbass (like usual, but that`s beside the point).

On the other hand, YOUR post was just a pissing contest. I don`t laugh at pissing contests. I laugh at stupidity. And I laugh quite sadly as I watch this country get flushed down the drain by politicians that don`t understand the basics of the country they`re trying to represent...
0
Reply
Male 351
well, that didnt work.... here is the link.... whatever... the joke failed, i will retreat under a rock now(link has 3spaces in it to reduce word length)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com /_9t1Of45QHd0/R_xAL-yPFJI /AAAAAAAAC2U/MxJuo7KwfLw/s1600-h/ 1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg
0
Reply
Male 351
"the second amendment states that you have to right to bare arms ......could that possibly mean that you have the right to wear short sleeve shirts or your greasy cheesie encrusted wife beater shirt???"


EHEM, it`s the right to BEAR ARMS

0
Reply
Female 2
Actually, you are the ignorant ones. The statement is not in either the Constitution or any of the Amendments, it is only alluded to. "The concept of separation of church & state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand & the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson`s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
0
Reply
Female 28
So I totally agree that she`s a dumb moron that shouldn`t be allowed to live, but teaching creationism or religion in public schools should not be the concern. Have they seen the childhood obesity rate? What about the rate of kids getting type 2 diabetes? They need to bring back funding for all the schools who had to cut their phys-ed classes...not worry about evolution...I`m just sayin...
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>the second amendment states that you have to right to bare arms ......could that possibly mean that you have the right to wear short sleeve shirts or your greasy cheesie encrusted wife beater shirt???<<<

It could except for the fact that most of us contextual definitions to determine the meaning of words. The word "bear" (sorry for the spelling before) is used as a verb in this case. Assigning it the meaning of a big furry animal would not make sense.

Seeing that you have now resorted to name calling attempting to cast dispersions on the character of those that disagree with you instead of discussing the merits of the argument suggests that you agree but are afraid to admit it.

Or perhaps you were just making fun of my poor spelling....in that case touche.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
bob, your comments are so astonishingly stupid, I don`t even know where to begin to answer them. You obviously don`t have the slightest clue what you`re talking about.
0
Reply
Male 273
you guys are dumb, it`s called a rhetorical question
0
Reply
Male 1,016
the second amendment states that you have to right to bare arms ......could that possibly mean that you have the right to wear short sleeve shirts or your greasy cheesie encrusted wife beater shirt???
0
Reply
Male 3,915
you gotta give it to the guy...

he didn`t make fun of her...

he just proved she is a moron...lol
0
Reply
Male 809
Ignorant woman. If she gets elected there is no hope for this country.
0
Reply
Male 30
I`m starting to believe Christine O`Donnell is an idiot... but there`s just so little evidence to support that... can IAB help?

O.o
0
Reply
Male 229
Sarah Palin 2.0 - A bigger idiot than the first model.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>
So dang, you argue that since the original document says nothing about separation of church and state, that is not its intended meaning?<<<

No I argue that the meaning of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is clear AS WRITTEN. Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government shall not pass a law establishing a religion. It does NOT say ANYTHING about a local school district which is NOT the congress of the federal government, teaching evolution as science, as stupid as that would be. A local school district teaching evolution DOES not "establish a religion." Now requiring students to AGREE with the idea of a single God, etc. etc. might go that far. But teaching them an idiotic idea does not.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>It says nothing about personal firearms. That meaning was clarified at, you guessed it, subsequent Supreme Court rulings. And since you don`t accept them, I take it you will be handing over all your weapons?<<<


No the Second amendment says arms. It does not say "personal arms" or "non-personal arms" or"government approved arms" simply arms. No clarification was needed etc. for those that were trying to have the government overreach. The supreme court simply enforced the constitution. It did not need to read the writings of the framers the language was clear as written.


0
Reply
Male 639
All creation events are the exact same, whether or not a god did it. Exnihiliation occurs in all beginning scenarios. There was a moment when there was nothing and then in the next there is something. Nobody knows how this happened so let`s just shut up and admit it. There is no way around this. And to the people who may bring up M-theory or multiverses which may have created ours, please acknowledge that you do not know where the membrane or other universes came from. It`s all the same whether or not some supreme being is involved, so let`s not worry about something that is impossible to talk about with any certainty.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
She`s the product of the neo-libral stupidfication of segment of American society, and of which wants to implement nation wide. The Dominionist and Reconstruntionists WANT to kill US democratic institutions. They also want to force feed their view of Christianity down every American throat regardless of any previous "point of view".

This woman is part of the enemy that IS with in. Personally, the United States is doomed one way or the other. Politically, economically or both(ie another war would do the trick).
0
Reply
Male 4,290
So dang, you argue that since the original document says nothing about separation of church and state, that is not its intended meaning? Even though subsequent Supreme Court rulings have said that it is (see my earlier Judge Souter quote).
OK, fine. Let`s move on to the second amendment.

It says nothing about personal firearms. That meaning was clarified at, you guessed it, subsequent Supreme Court rulings. And since you don`t accept them, I take it you will be handing over all your weapons?
0
Reply
Male 6,693
And, I don`t care.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Religion being taught in church is not enough for the Christine O`Donnell`s of the world. They fight to have their damn religion force fed to all children on the tax payer dime. She isn`t just a nitwit she`s a fillibusterer. She gets a thought in her head and says it a million times over and over as loud as she can so answers will be drowned out. She is annoying to the Nth degree. I can`t wait for the election to end so she can go into history`s dustbin.
0
Reply
Male 2,669
You know, O`Donnell might do better in these debates if she hid one of her famous mice-with-a-human-brain in her pocket and let it whisper reasonable answers to her.

She`s clearly an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>Science are considered fact, like basically everything in physics, e.g., Newtonian Mechanics.<<<


Except for the issue that this description of the world is, in fact, wrong. Does this theory produce results that are close enough for most common situations, yes. Is it a correct description of the world, no.
0
Reply
Male 663
So if the courts have ruled that local government is allowed to decide what is taught in schools, how can the first amendment be used to prevent people from teaching that the sun rotates around the earth?

Is that "establishing" a religion? Stupid yes. In the long term damaging to the region that allows such crap, but a violation of the first amendment I do not think so.

The first amendment was a response to the history of the people who can to the US at the time, many of which were trying to escape persecution for not following the single state religion. How does a local school teaching an idea that MANY religions of the world teach establish a single state religion?
0
Reply
Male 2,552
It`s not in the friggin` Constitution. God, I hate all the Obama-Zombies who are making such a big deal about this.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>The intention of the clause was made apparent by the founders (most specifically the drafters of the constitution) in more simple english numerous times. The fact that the specific words you`re searching for do not appear in the constitution is irrelevant- the intention of the law remains intact. <<

Yet it is the constitution that is the document. Not all the other things that were written. It is the document that was VOTED on and AGREED to by the parties involved. It seems a bit ridiculous to use what someone wrote later as the meaning. Suppose we all unanimously voted that you could only wear brown pants on Wed. Then later I write that what that really meant was that brown pants were not supposed to be worn during the week. Which should the courts enforce?

To those that are saying that she is splitting hairs over semantics, what do you think constitutional law is all about?

Ignore the next post as my cut and paster went crazy.