McCain Shocker!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets put this to rest. If John McCain belonged to a church and the reverand of this church is caught on tape 2 times calling black people the N word and saying how the black race is ruining this country. And this preacher had another preacher come to his church and preach the same kind of rhetoric. And this same teacher taught the teachings of the Aryan brotherhood. Now John, he considers this preacher his spiritual advisor and leader. Johns been going to this church for 20 years, in fact he was married by him. Are you saying that none of this rubbed off on John.

Do you pay attention in these threads, or do you just look for something you can claw into in hopes of winning a rhetorical victory? Because I've said point blank multiple times I do not hold McCain and Palin's extremist friends and spiritual leaders against them.

hoodonit00 said:
We've been trying to get him to come up with something for 50 pages and he hasn't yet

Nonsense. You asked how my life had been impacted and I listed three rights I no longer have. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't give you one. You're obviously just interested in scoring points as you've constantly run from addressing the valid point that if you think losing rights aren't important you should be fine with doing away with the Bill of Rights. But you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
 
The difference is their opinions have force of law. You've also yet again made a false assumption about my position instead of just asking me. Not only have I not said the Supreme Court is speaking fact, I've repeatedly noted we're dealing with their interpretation. :rolleyes:


And you're treating their interpretation as if it means something other than the gun that is pointed at our heads demanding obedience.

You have completely dropped the context now. You're holding up the Patriot Act as having gutted the Bill of Rights, and when people point out your candidate's support of the exact same behavior, you use the authority of the court to support his position as constitutional. When it's shown that the interpretation is rotten, and clearly unconstitutional itself, suddenly, their interpretation is no longer a fact.

If it is not a fact that the interpretation is constitutional, how is Obama's support of gun control any less anti-Bill of Rights than the Patriot Act?
 
So what do you think about Heller vs DC. The Supreme Court actually voted that it is an individuals right to have firearms. How are you going to spin this.

There is no need to spin it. You realize a Supreme Court ruling is an interpretation of the document, right?
 
...but for the record I agree with you on the 6th Amendment! Takes WAAAAYYYY to long...and I do have personal examples to prove this! :D
 
Nonsense. You asked how my life had been impacted and I listed three rights I no longer have. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't give you one. You're obviously just interested in scoring points as you've constantly run from addressing the valid point that if you think losing rights aren't important you should be fine with doing away with the Bill of Rights. But you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

I Have those rights today, why don't you unless you are not a citizen or are at War with the US, or Dead, or under 16, or are a fetis... :peace
 
And you're treating their interpretation as if it means something other than the gun that is pointed at our heads demanding obedience.

Sorry, but I'm not remotely doing this. I'm just pointing out that the Second Amendment refers only to arms. That's the plain language of the text. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean some guns. All the rest is just you arguing against straw men.

You're holding up the Patriot Act as having gutted the Bill of Rights

Did I mention the PATRIOT Act?

and when people point out your candidate's support of the exact same behavior, you use the authority of the court to support his position as constitutional.

But that's literally the role of the court!

When it's shown that the interpretation is rotten, and clearly unconstitutional itself, suddenly, their interpretation is no longer a fact.

Again I've never claimed their interpretations are facts. That's something you invented for this conversation. And quite honestly there can only be opinions about whether their interpretations are rotten.

If it is not a fact that the interpretation is constitutional, how is Obama's support of gun control any less anti-Bill of Rights than the Patriot Act?

Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to own every type of firearm ever devised.
 
I Have those rights today

You didn't actually. You simply weren't in a position to need them.

Rights are important for the slippery slope:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then they came for me...
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Paraphrased. But it's why you don't let them come for the Communists. Rights that seemed inconsequential in 1920s Berlin sure seemed a damn sight more important a decade later. So yeah. We could list the ways we're worse off today than we were eight years ago, but none are more important than the fact that our Bill of Rights has been gutted.
 
You didn't actually. You simply weren't in a position to need them.

Rights are important for the slippery slope:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then they came for me...
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

What does this "emotional" response have to do with anything currently talked about?

So yeah. We could list the ways we're worse off today than we were eight years ago, but none are more important than the fact that our Bill of Rights has been gutted.

Endulge us! I do not see/have not/nor heard any Bill of Rights being gutted today...So what specifically are you talking about because all I have read for 25 some odd pages is that "It's gone" "Gutted" "No more" but no example...
 
From Heller vs DC. And I quote.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
We
 
Sorry, but I'm not remotely doing this. I'm just pointing out that the Second Amendment refers only to arms. That's the plain language of the text. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean some guns.

The plain language of the text makes no exclusions. The interpretation does. What am I missing? Better yet, what are you missing?

barbelith said:
But that's literally the role of the court!

The role of the court is to apply the letter of the law to specific cases. There is no room for interpretation. If what they lack is a context to understand the language of the law, all they need to do is look to the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the nominal Anti-Federalist Papers.

barbelith said:
Again I've never claimed their interpretations are facts. That's something you invented for this conversation. And quite honestly there can only be opinions about whether their interpretations are rotten.

What you claimed is that their interpretations, regardless of their nature, qualify as constitutional based on their authority as the highest court.

Quite honestly, your subjectivism is wearing thin.

barbelith said:
Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to own every type of firearm ever devised.

What the 2nd amendment does is recognize my right to own firearms, and yes of any kind. That woud include assault rifles, RPG's, howitzers, etc.

No document can confer a right. Rights are an inalienable aspect of human nature. I have the right to defend myself. If what I need to defend myself against is a predatory government, then I have a right to the arsenal necessary to perform the task.

These are facts. Whether you choose to comprehend them or not is your problem. I'm finished making it mine.
 
You didn't actually. You simply weren't in a position to need them.

Rights are important for the slippery slope:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then they came for me...
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Paraphrased. But it's why you don't let them come for the Communists. Rights that seemed inconsequential in 1920s Berlin sure seemed a damn sight more important a decade later. So yeah. We could list the ways we're worse off today than we were eight years ago, but none are more important than the fact that our Bill of Rights has been gutted.
I wish they would come for the Communist, Socialist, and Liberals. Then we could go back to the great country we once were.
 
From Heller vs DC. And I quote.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
We

Here it is Barbelith, right from our Supreme Court.
 
What does this "emotional" response have to do with anything currently talked about?

I genuinely mean this in the most respectful way possible, but if you can't follow that very basic explanation then I'm wasting my time going any further.
 
Well if someone breaks into your home and starts to murder your family, I just hope that both sides exercise restraint.
 
Hence interpretation. Did they really not go over this in school? It's the entire reason we have a Supreme Court in the first place.

Hence legislating from the bench should not be done, a handful of people should not be interpreting what the whole nation should or should not be doing...interpret but do not interpret without the confirmation of Congress, Senate, President or The People...but not 9 people...And the Checks and Balances seem non-existent

SCOTUS has gotten out of control...Their jurisdiction is way too far reaching, to many cases! There are so many laws and cases that you can take a topic now and run a complete circle around it...

Just my personal thoughts and not a paid advertisement from John McCain nor Sarah Palin...:rolleyes:
 
What does this "emotional" response have to do with anything currently talked about?



Endulge us! I do not see/have not/nor heard any Bill of Rights being gutted today...So what specifically are you talking about because all I have read for 25 some odd pages is that "It's gone" "Gutted" "No more" but no example...

Well...???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top