| October 10th, 2005 01:14 AM |
|
|
| KeepRigid |
quote:
To anybody who can read, the people had the right to KEEP KEEP KEEP
I saw a woman sitting between two men. One side of her face was pale, the other was blushing.
Overhead, a voice inquired, "What is Truth?"
And I answered in kind, "I'm sorry, I thought you were someone else." |
| October 10th, 2005 02:36 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
hey keep - can you get your lawyer to throw in his two cents worth - is he a nazi too??
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| October 10th, 2005 12:18 PM |
|
|
| KeepRigid |
I rarely see him these days, but no matter, as he wouldn't have two cents on him anyway.
Although he has tried the nazi approach to get women, it didn't really suit him. He's never had beliefs of any sort.
|
| October 10th, 2005 03:09 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Need a good laugh today. . .check this out http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream |
| October 10th, 2005 04:17 PM |
|
|
| Ronnie Richards |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
steady ronnie - no need to be abusive
twas just a general observation, not refering to anyone in particular - i'm sure there are some non-nazi lawyers.
anyway, to me the only thing provoking about the stones and their political expressions is the *lack* of political or "topical" songs in their career |
| October 13th, 2005 01:04 PM |
|
|
| SmallerBang |
Exactly, because they don't know what the f**k they are talking about. |
| October 13th, 2005 09:29 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
yes i understand that you don't or can't or won't see the difference between the political and the legal uses of terms liberal and conservative
also get yourself a dictionary and look those words up - that might help for a start
cioa baby
I am starting to think that you boardname actually reveals something about your mental status. My God. One does not have to resort to a LIBERAL reading of the document to find a general right to bear arms. This right can be found even with a strict constructionist interpretation. You were saying that it was a Liberal reading of the document that affords a general right to bear arms (which is a conservative political position). I do not agree. I think the right to bear arms is plainy evident in the language of the ammendment, and that a strict constructionst reading yeilds a general right to bear arms. |
| October 13th, 2005 09:33 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
sorry man - i've given up on you
no further correspondence will be entered into - 'tho in closing i refer you to stonesthrow's post to you |
| October 13th, 2005 09:45 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
sorry man - i've given up on you
no further correspondence will be entered into - 'tho in closing i refer you to stonesthrow's post to you
The post was nonsense. I really regret ever even becoming involved in this thread. What a total waste of my time.
Have a great day. 
"The text of the Second Amendment points to a personal right of individuals: A "right of the people" is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase "keep arms" at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a "right of the people." While the phrase "bear arms" often referred to carrying of arms in military service, it also sometimes denoted carrying arms for private purposes. The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause - particularly its reference to the "Militia," which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service - is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language. Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals. Finally, a consideration of the powers that the original Constitution grants or allows over the militia makes it unlikely that the Second Amendment would secure a collective or quasi-collective right."
DOJ, office of legal counsel
[Edited by the good] |
