Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Justice Alito sounds the air-raid sirens: "You will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there's another that comes after the Ninth Amendment"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line 368
    More: Scary, Alito, First Amendment, Robert Bork, Federalist Society, Roberts Court, corporate lawyers, texas senators, federalisms  
•       •       •

10200 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2012 at 8:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 10:55:29 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes history is bunk. We really can safely ignore it and assume that the problems of the past could never possibly return. It's pointless to consider anything that happened more than a week ago.

Yeah, because arguing that I am wanting the US to become Somaliesque, and that limiting federal government is going to result in the reinstitution of slavery is reasonable.

Guess you don't know.


Tell us again how much easier it is the get rid of state level oppression.
 
2012-11-28 10:55:44 AM  
Ah, yes, the 2nd and 10th Amendments...otherwise known as the 1st and 2nd in the Conservative Bill of RIghts.

The other 8 are just power usurping bleeding heart mandates from the libruls the Real American Founding Fathers couldn't pack on a boat back to Fascist Nazi Socialist GermaRussia, who managed to sneak them in while Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were rape-emancipating their slaves and weren't paying attention.
 
2012-11-28 10:56:27 AM  

McPoonDanlcrat: I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution.


Wouldn't his interpretation of the constitution be somewhat constant to the point where it is his personal opinion that amendment x says y?

Will precedent matter in a future case if Alito set the precedent? Would you want whoever is hearing the case to ignore precedent if it goes against your personal opinion or would you want them to follow precedent if Alito set it? 

It seems like you want a SCJ to rule the way you want them too..maybe thats your problem?
 
2012-11-28 10:56:52 AM  
/slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.
 
2012-11-28 10:57:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.


So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?
 
2012-11-28 10:57:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us again how much easier it is the get rid of state level oppression.


The confederates won? The south is still segregated?

Yeah, turns out history says it was easier.
 
2012-11-28 10:57:25 AM  

s2s2s2: You mean like Ohio, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania? They were my favorite confederate states.


You should probably go look up the histories of Pennsylvania and Ohio with respect to slavery.
 
2012-11-28 10:59:03 AM  

Father_Jack: And using a rifle's action to cycle a round is CHEATING.


Your open disdain for the M1 Garand has been noted. A surviving World War II vet has been dispatched to your home to whip your ass back into the Depression.
 
2012-11-28 10:59:03 AM  

riverwalk barfly: And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.


That is exactly what the Founders envisioned when it comes to the Senate.
 
2012-11-28 10:59:39 AM  

riverwalk barfly: /slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.


house of representatives, how does it work?
 
2012-11-28 11:00:23 AM  

Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?


I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?
 
2012-11-28 11:01:36 AM  

qorkfiend: s2s2s2: You mean like Ohio, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania? They were my favorite confederate states.

You should probably go look up the histories of Pennsylvania and Ohio with respect to slavery.


I think it unnecessary.
 
2012-11-28 11:02:32 AM  

Father_Jack: riverwalk barfly: /slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.

house of representatives, how does it work?


Piss poorly when it's gerrymandered.
 
2012-11-28 11:02:45 AM  

s2s2s2: qorkfiend: s2s2s2: You mean like Ohio, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania? They were my favorite confederate states.

You should probably go look up the histories of Pennsylvania and Ohio with respect to slavery.

I think it unnecessary.


Given the ignorance of your comments, I'm not surprised. Who needs to know history, anyway?
 
2012-11-28 11:04:09 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Father_Jack: And using a rifle's action to cycle a round is CHEATING.

Your open disdain for the M1 Garand has been noted. A surviving World War II vet has been dispatched to your home to whip your ass back into the Depression.


well, the garand, the fn49, the soviet svt40 and the mas49, among a few others, because they still meet the criteria of "real" guns; they shoot a full sized round, will bruise your arm if you dont know how to hold it correctly, and still mount a bayo worthy of the name.

well give the garand a grudging exception. same with the BAR. but the tommy gun is RIGHT OUT
 
Bf+
2012-11-28 11:06:07 AM  
We get it-- He's black.
 
2012-11-28 11:09:10 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?


something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.
 
2012-11-28 11:09:17 AM  

Father_Jack: they shoot a full sized round...but the tommy gun is RIGHT OUT


Your disdain for .45 ACP has been noted...
 
2012-11-28 11:10:22 AM  

qorkfiend: Vlad_the_Inaner: Citation Needed: We tried to do that whole anti-federalist thing too and do you remember how that turned out?

Did they have time machines back then too, so something could be 'anti' something that hadn't even been formulated yet? A prereaction ? (a word similar to precrime)

Federalism was a reaction to the way the Articles of Confederation were working (i.e not well), not vice versa.

The Anti-Federalists were a thing back then. No time machine needed.


The anti-federalists were a collection of opposing viewpoints to the Federalists (you know, those guys promulgating the 'Federalist Papers'). They weren't really organized. They were a reaction not to the government, but to a proposal for a new government.

What I love is the delicious irony of the subject of this thread. You see, the The Federalists were basically the inventors of the main body of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists basically objected, and would have worked against ratification, had the Bill of Rights not been added. So not only is the US running of Federalist principles, its running on Anti-Federalist principles too. One temeoering the other.

So the irony comes from the 10th being an Anti-Federalist principle, and Alito is cheering it to his audience of Federalist worshipers, The Federalist Society. Basically its a sour grapes thing. Those guys would be all for sweeping federal powers if they were more in charge. Its basically their charter. 

There is a reason the Federalist Party went away. It was not any 'Anti-Federalist Party's' doing. The Federalists were a bunch of douches and over-reached. Crap like the 'Alien and Sedition' laws. People had enough and It was the Democratic-Republican party that supplanted them. Thus began 'The Era of Good Feelings'
 
2012-11-28 11:11:04 AM  

qorkfiend: Given the ignorance of your comments, I'm not surprised. Who needs to know history, anyway?


I think the real question is "who really learns the most from history?"
A: The bad guys.
 
2012-11-28 11:12:37 AM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?

something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.


They weren't exactly deterred.

www.pearlharboroahu.com
 
2012-11-28 11:15:23 AM  

Giltric: McPoonDanlcrat: I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution.

Wouldn't his interpretation of the constitution be somewhat constant to the point where it is his personal opinion that amendment x says y?

Will precedent matter in a future case if Alito set the precedent? Would you want whoever is hearing the case to ignore precedent if it goes against your personal opinion or would you want them to follow precedent if Alito set it? 

It seems like you want a SCJ to rule the way you want them too..maybe thats your problem?


As I stated before

I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution. He diminishes the pre-supposed impariality of the SCOTUS when he publicly expresses his personal views.

I expect a justice on the SCOTUS to base their decisions on all 3 of the above.

They "sit on their hands" during the state of the union address to preserve the appearance of impartiality. Why is it ok for him to make public speeches which basically undo this?

I don't have a problem, Justice Alito does.
 
2012-11-28 11:15:37 AM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?

something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.


From Wikiquote: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan's wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org

But he did for sure say this: Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House.
 
2012-11-28 11:16:53 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?

something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.

They weren't exactly deterred.

[www.pearlharboroahu.com image 328x265]


Well you don't know the difference between invading and attacking.
Plus you'll never be convinced water is wet if a republican says it is..

How did that turn out for the japanese anyway......
 
2012-11-28 11:21:37 AM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?

something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.

They weren't exactly deterred.

[www.pearlharboroahu.com image 328x265]

Well you don't know the difference between invading and attacking.
Plus you'll never be convinced water is wet if a republican says it is..

How did that turn out for the japanese anyway......


They didn't invade because they did not have the naval forces or sea lift capacity to support an invasion of Hawaii, let alone the west coast.

as for how it turned out for Japan...

0.tqn.com not www.budsgunshop.com
 
2012-11-28 11:22:21 AM  

Giltric: [www.pearlharboroahu.com image 328x265]

Well you don't know the difference between invading and attacking.
Plus you'll never be convinced water is wet if a republican says it is..

How did that turn out for the japanese anyway......



I hear it turned out OK....


My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific.

George W. Bush
Tokyo, Japan
Feb. 18, 2002


/since 1852 apparently
 
2012-11-28 11:23:36 AM  

McPoonDanlcrat: Giltric: McPoonDanlcrat: I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution.

Wouldn't his interpretation of the constitution be somewhat constant to the point where it is his personal opinion that amendment x says y?

Will precedent matter in a future case if Alito set the precedent? Would you want whoever is hearing the case to ignore precedent if it goes against your personal opinion or would you want them to follow precedent if Alito set it? 

It seems like you want a SCJ to rule the way you want them too..maybe thats your problem?

As I stated before

I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution. He diminishes the pre-supposed impariality of the SCOTUS when he publicly expresses his personal views.

I expect a justice on the SCOTUS to base their decisions on all 3 of the above.

They "sit on their hands" during the state of the union address to preserve the appearance of impartiality. Why is it ok for him to make public speeches which basically undo this?

I don't have a problem, Justice Alito does.


I believe the last one should carry more weight then the first two....precedent could be some prior judges bad decision....is corporate personhood set in stone becasue of precedent? Arguments are just whatever bullshiat you can come up with to change someone elses mind and that usually includes outright lies and half truths.


/[dealwithit.alito.jpeg}
 
2012-11-28 11:25:10 AM  

riverwalk barfly: /slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.


Uh, yeah actually they did. That was kinda the point of the Senate, so we wouldn't just govern for California, Illinois, Texas and New York.
 
2012-11-28 11:26:54 AM  
I was going to say no, but the realized I had Alito confused with Roberts.

Roberts is a no, Alito is an ass.
 
2012-11-28 11:27:00 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I hear it turned out OK....


Aside from the mushroom clouds and all the dead and various financial crisises, lost generations etc......
 
2012-11-28 11:28:55 AM  

manimal2878: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: No, but enough to make it difficult and not worth it for the use of the Army to maintain whole scale martial law. And I believe americas gun culture does serve as strong deturent to outside enimies.

[mjcdn.motherjones.com image 300x226]
Not a documentary.

So you are saying it is not a deterrent because of a fictional movie?

I'm saying that it is not a meaningful deterrent as compared to two oceans, and the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

I can't imaging any action of a foreign power that has ever been deterred by the thought of our "gun culture". Can you provide an example?

something something gun behind every blade of grass....admiral yammamoto.

Hitler had some thoughts along those lines too, I remember a book from a long time ago claiming that he thought Pennsylvania should be controlled first because of their civillian gun ownership.

From Wikiquote: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan's wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org

But he did for sure say this: Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House.


Yamato also realized he did not have the resources to defeat the US. He thought if he could win the way they thought the Germans were about to win in the USSR (recall at that point the panzers were very close to Moscow), they could bring the US to the peace table, buy themselves enough time to consolidate their empire which theyd cobbled together by annexing all the european possessions in East Pac, and maybe even get the Aussies to bow out too. With this breathing space, and see. Hit the US so hard they bow out, but not conquer it.

That the Japanese ever thought they could land an army in CA and march on washinton DC I find very hard to believe. The Japanese navy of 1941 was excellent, their army was not ever very good, was always relatively poorly supplied and although adequately, hardly brilliantly led. They had balls and were ok against garrisons (see invasion of Singapore), but usually only when working as combined arms with the navy and naval airpower...

Anyways the imperial Japanese never had a snowballs chance in hell in defeating the US in the kind of war they ended up fighting. Unlike the Germans, who could've actually won if theyd done some stuff differently, the Japanese didn't have the infrastructure for a massive total war, on either the military training level or the industrial one... surely they mustve known this in higher circles.
 
2012-11-28 11:29:56 AM  

Giltric: McPoonDanlcrat: Giltric: McPoonDanlcrat: I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution.

Wouldn't his interpretation of the constitution be somewhat constant to the point where it is his personal opinion that amendment x says y?

Will precedent matter in a future case if Alito set the precedent? Would you want whoever is hearing the case to ignore precedent if it goes against your personal opinion or would you want them to follow precedent if Alito set it? 

It seems like you want a SCJ to rule the way you want them too..maybe thats your problem?

As I stated before

I want him to keep his opinions out of the media and rule based on the arguments, precedent and his interpretation of the constitution. He diminishes the pre-supposed impariality of the SCOTUS when he publicly expresses his personal views.

I expect a justice on the SCOTUS to base their decisions on all 3 of the above.

They "sit on their hands" during the state of the union address to preserve the appearance of impartiality. Why is it ok for him to make public speeches which basically undo this?

I don't have a problem, Justice Alito does.

I believe the last one should carry more weight then the first two....precedent could be some prior judges bad decision....is corporate personhood set in stone becasue of precedent? Arguments are just whatever bullshiat you can come up with to change someone elses mind and that usually includes outright lies and half truths.


You continue to gloss over the issue I had though. Do you think it is bad for him to make public speeches which diminish the appearance of impartiality?

That was my whole point from the beginning.
 
2012-11-28 11:32:28 AM  
This story has been around for over a week, with many news articles covering it. I'm glad subby chose the most biased editorial coverage for posting here, that really illuminates the issues.
 
2012-11-28 11:34:07 AM  

McPoonDanlcrat: You continue to gloss over the issue I had though. Do you think it is bad for him to make public speeches which diminish the appearance of impartiality?


No. He has a right to say whatever he wants as does everyone else.....

You have politicians taking oaths to defend and uphold the consitution then they go out and give press conferences about the evils of the 2nd amendment......why stop at judges, unless you have a political bias yourself.
 
2012-11-28 11:34:32 AM  

lennavan: riverwalk barfly: /slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.

Uh, yeah actually they did. That was kinda the point of the Senate, so we wouldn't just govern for California, Illinois, Texas and New York.


I do understand what they envisioned, but I doubt they envisioned a state with 600,000 vs. one with 38,000,000, that was my point. But maybe they did.
 
2012-11-28 11:34:33 AM  

Virtuoso80: I'm glad subby chose the most biased editorial coverage for posting here, that really illuminates the issues.


WELCOME TO FARK

 
2012-11-28 11:37:06 AM  

Virtuoso80: This story has been around for over a week, with many news articles covering it. I'm glad subby chose the most biased editorial coverage for posting here, that really illuminates the issues.


I'm sure it has to do with the political leanings of whoever greenlights what is submitted.....

This place used to bash everyone.....now it seems a different crew has taken over and protects certain politicians prestige.
 
2012-11-28 11:37:24 AM  

Giltric: Vlad_the_Inaner: I hear it turned out OK....

Aside from the mushroom clouds and all the dead and various financial crisises, lost generations etc......


So you're saying those guys I heard that from are full of crap?

nicolas_cage_you_dont_say.jpg
 
2012-11-28 11:37:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Virtuoso80: I'm glad subby chose the most biased editorial coverage for posting here, that really illuminates the issues.

WELCOME TO FARK THE ECHO CHAMBER


/ftfy
 
2012-11-28 11:39:37 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Vlad_the_Inaner: I hear it turned out OK....

Aside from the mushroom clouds and all the dead and various financial crisises, lost generations etc......

So you're saying those guys I heard that from are full of crap?

nicolas_cage_you_dont_say.jpg


I'm saying might makes right and Japan got their asses subjugated.
 
2012-11-28 11:40:08 AM  
What's a "Tentfer"?

To camp with.

/Stop it with these tomatoes!
 
2012-11-28 11:40:40 AM  

Giltric: Virtuoso80: This story has been around for over a week, with many news articles covering it. I'm glad subby chose the most biased editorial coverage for posting here, that really illuminates the issues.

I'm sure it has to do with the political leanings of whoever greenlights what is submitted.....

This place used to bash everyone.....now it seems a different crew has taken over and protects certain politicians prestige tries to get page clicks from the current demographic bubble here.


FTFY
 
2012-11-28 11:41:23 AM  

Giltric: No. He has a right to say whatever he wants as does everyone else.....


That's not really true either. Members of the military can't really say what they want, and neither can somebody like me, that only works at the County Gov level. If my statements in public were to start to call into question my ability to do my job, there would be issues.
 
2012-11-28 11:44:49 AM  
Why is my screen so grey?

static.prtst.net
 
2012-11-28 11:47:22 AM  

manimal2878: Giltric: No. He has a right to say whatever he wants as does everyone else.....

That's not really true either. Members of the military can't really say what they want, and neither can somebody like me, that only works at the County Gov level. If my statements in public were to start to call into question my ability to do my job, there would be issues.


So hes a big old meanie for being a person whos job it is is to follow the guidelines set forth by the constitution and claiming we have a right to bear arms and states have powers too...like it says in the constitution?

maybe I haven't had enoguh coffee...maybe I had too much....but I just don't see the boggle...citizen.
 
2012-11-28 11:53:17 AM  
when you join a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" you can have your farking gun assholes.
 
2012-11-28 11:54:40 AM  

riverwalk barfly: lennavan: riverwalk barfly: /slight threadjack but...

The constitution and the first ten amendments were ratified when there were thirteen states and the population was about four million. Now the US has fifty states and a population of about 315 million. Don't you think we should make some adjustments in how we govern? And when a state with a population of 600,000 has the same representation in the senate as a state with 38,000,000, something seems wrong. I don't think the founding fathers envisioned such a disparity.

Uh, yeah actually they did. That was kinda the point of the Senate, so we wouldn't just govern for California, Illinois, Texas and New York.

I do understand what they envisioned, but I doubt they envisioned a state with 600,000 vs. one with 38,000,000, that was my point. But maybe they did.


Eh, you might be right. I guess my point would have been better as a - perhaps they did not consider it but with respect to the Senate I doubt they would have cared.

That said, you have a great point. If the Founding Fathers were to draw up a constitution today, I imagine it would be incredibly different. Not so sure the well regulated militia is relevant anymore, for instance.
 
2012-11-28 11:55:43 AM  

Serious Black:

Sure. What arms are you allowed to keep and bear? For example, if I want to get a Stinger missile launcher, an RPG launcher, or an M240B, are those approved? Can I use radioactive rounds or shells that carry biological or chemical weapons under the amendment?


It boils down to the 18th century definition of "arms". According to Scalia, cannons are not protected because they cannot be carried. However, rocket launchers are hand-held, so they may be constitutional, but the issue "had not been decided".

Link
 
2012-11-28 11:56:28 AM  

pacified: when you join a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" you can have your farking gun assholes.


Not according to the 2nd amendment, asshole.

Militia = people.
The People ≠ Militias.
 
2012-11-28 11:56:33 AM  

GardenWeasel: It boils down to the 18th century definition of "arms". According to Scalia, cannons are not protected because they cannot be carried. However, rocket launchers are hand-held, so they may be constitutional, but the issue "had not been decided"


i wonder what scalias opinion is of exoskeleton systems that allow you to carry heavier 'arms'
 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report