The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

And the Supreme Court disagrees with you! You just disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution when it suits you!

 

A subject more important than what?

 

For "not2serious"

Blah, blah, blah.

Like so many on the Replicant Right here, what you know about real debate fills a thimble. All you (plural) are good for is one-liner sarcasm . (Just like the Nazis in the 1930s, nowhere on earth was better than Germany!)

Do the rest of us a favor. Go away ...

PS: Enough your nonsense, you go on Ignore!

 

Pathetic blather.

You should be on a Message Board where such mindless prattle is typical. This is a Debate Forum. Learn to develop a reasoned argument.

Or leave!

 

Doesn't have to.

Bear arms means in case of war. At the time, the colonists were afraid of a British invasion. Which in fact happened. (Mind you, that is not now a Present Danger!)

So it was underlined their right to "bear arms" IN THE CASE OF INVASION.

Get it? Likely no. You gun-nutters are all looking for the right to keep your arms, including machine-guns. Which is one reason why the US has one of the highest death-rates from guns as any nation on earth.

Yes, it's true. Even democracies have their idiots ...

NB: For your edification (though it wont do one bit of good) from CNN: How US gun culture compares with the world in five charts

 

"Thousands of resolutions", but just none that you are aware of that happen to coincide with Democratic Party principles?

What makes you say that I am a "Trump faithful?"

Okay, but these North Carolina laws still exist don't they? So what use was the adjudication by these courts?

And you have yet to answer this question: What is it about minority communities that make it difficult for them to deal with these post-Shelby County v Holder, North Carolina laws just like everyone else?

That's your problem. You THINK that a tyrannical government is just not possible. Is there a point in history where you would say that it WAS possible? If so, when was the turning point from possible to not possible? Does Trump not get close to being a possible tyrant for you? I'll assume that you are one of the few sensible ones on the left who does not think that Trump is Hitler!

What are you talking about? I replied to all of that section. Directly above where you said: "You just make up crap!" you said: "What nonsense is this! Their purpose, according to the Constitution, was to to enforce the law, suppress insurrection, and repel invaders" which I responded to as well!

You actually NAMED a specific "activist justice?"

They are the Constitutional amendments that were invoked in those cases, which you asked for in your previous post, when you said, "Which are...."

Okay, so you DO think that the Supreme Court was legislating in Roe v Wade?

Right, so it wasn't based on the Constitution then, it was just "SCOTUS selecting a President." Surely you can't be serious.

 

WRONG. He doesn't give a **** about the constitution, unless the constitution supports his own views. Even as a judge, he was completely biased in all cases where one side was a conservative, and would side with them even when the facts of a case didn't support them.

Far righters bitch about government overreach even when the government's actions are completely constitutional, if those actions do not support your views......And then turn around and support government actions that are blatantly unconstitutional when they support your views......


The same types pf people who call SCOTUS tyrants when they make a ruling that you don't support, and heros when they do, even if both rulings are made under the same circumstances.

 

Namely, this chart that says it all:

Is that the sort of country where you'd want to have a family and bring up kids? Have not enough of our children died in schools having been shot to death?

And if you believe the chart above is irrelevant: What planet do you live on ... ?

PS: No, the US is not the only country in which schooling gun-deaths have occured. It is just - by FAR - the worst. Here is the listing by country:
List of attacks related to primary schools

 

More one-liner "piffle-'n-drivel".

You get an "F" in Debate Principles ...

 

Debate First Principles!

Since this IS (supposedly) a Debate Forum, we should know the First Principles of debating. They are here:

The above are applied to vocal-debates. Debate Forums such as this one are based upon written exchanges. No great problem and even better when it comes to quoting evidential proof of any debater's given contention.

 

The first rule of debate is to actually respond! Which something that you haven't done here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...naughs-victory.543237/page-15#post-1069789342

Here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-vote-fairly.542461/page-8#post-1069784471

And here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-vote-fairly.542461/page-6#post-1069768687

If I get an "F" in Debate Principles, you get a "Z" my friend!

 

Hardly.

The problem with the Progressive Re-Education Camp version I keep hearing from people that think Government isn't Fascist enough is that they can't effectively get past this indisputable fact:

The Bill of Rights is in it's entirety a partial listing of Citizens Rights, (AKA, Limitations on Government Power). There is ABSOLUTELY NO limitation to Citizen's Rights (AKA expansion of Government Power) in the Bill of Rights.

The people that say 2A limits citizen's rights are either liars or brainwashed by the left to the point that they don't even know what the Bill of Rights is.

 

More vague accusations without either specifics or proof.

Would you like to add some facts and proof to back up your post?

 

2A doesn't say, imply, hint to, or suggest "In Case of Invasion".
"Bear Arms" does not mean only in case of war. It never has.

Answer this... After the Revolutionary War, did the American Government:
..A) Round up all of the firearms from Americans.
or
..B) Openly allow firearm manufacturing, importation, distribution, and purchases.

Of course the answer is B....

The people that were running the Government were people that wrote, debated, signed, and supported the entire Constitution including the Bill of Rights.

The American people were armed before and after the Revolutionary War. There are about 400,000,000 legally owned firearms in America because it has been a Constitutional right to do so since the very second that the Constitution was passed. (Yes, it was a right before the Bill of Rights was passed. The Bill of Rights simply restates what people at the time thought was obvious.)

 

What you are not realizing, is that under progressive policies of President Obama, a large portion of the country felt disenfranchised. Now, control has been flipped, and adjustments are being made, and you are only seeing that from one perspective.

That's only because your perceptions are based on your opinions and you are failing to see that there is more than one side to every story.

This country was founded upon a few concepts that I believe Trump is focusing on, and I feel (my opinion) that this is returning the US to the conceptual basis for which it was founded. Some of those include:

1. Patriotism is not inherently bad. The US is not a bad country, and though mistakes have been made in our history, in general we are a shining beacon of opportunity and policies that most benefit the populace and by extension the world.

2. We are a superpower, in fact the super power of super powers, on this planet. Our influence is felt around the world. We need to start to act like a leader, which means that we don't make decisions or policy that affect the world based on popularity. We should be making decisions based on what best serves our interest while considering what is in the interest of the rest of the world.

3. Our economy is best driven by our private sector. The economic freedoms of our citizens to make their own way and the decisions that best serve themselves ultimately impact their individual liberty. The idea that government is a nanny state or responsible for the quality of life of it's citizens from cradle to grave is inherently contrary to that concept. You can not have freedoms and liberty with an overbearing centralized controlling government.

4. We need to stop with the PC basis for our political discourse. We have to stop making decisions and establishing policy that is based upon "feelings" or with concern about offending segments or factions of our country. This ties back in to government minimizing their involvement as they inherently remove liberties that provide for social liberty. When it is mandated that the government invest itself, they need to do so based on what is best for the country in general. We need to stop sugar coating things, and tell it the way it is.

5. We need law and order and respect for our legislative system and judicial responsibility. We need to stop blaming cops or suspecting wrong doing immediately as they do their job. We need to stop allowing selective implementation of the laws, including the security of our border.


These are all imperative concepts that I believe puts our country back on track with the concepts of it's founding, and concepts that I believe have made this country a model many other countries try to replicate since our founding.

 

No thanks.

 

Well I accept your surrender with honor. You have run out of facts, so now all you can do is pound the table. I understand and feel sorry for your position.

 

EXCELLENT POST. You hit the nail on the head. Many revolutions go around and pick up the guns as soon as the war is over. I guess many people here do not comprehend what happened and why in the "shot heard round the world".

 

Amazing! I submit actual quotes, and you still deny they exist. And beyond that, instead of providing arguments of your own, you just act as if the quotes weren't even there. Unbelievable how the Trump dogma (of not believing what you read with your own eyes) has taken hold.

I don't have to contend anything. I have sent you definitions in dictionaries of the era and the explanation from an 18th Century linguist. And I could provide many more. It's up to you what you want to conclude from the evidence provided. Denying it exists is an option. But not one that makes you look good.

Irrelevant to may argument. Which again, is that the 2nd Amendment, as weritten, does not establish, guarantee nor affirm and individual right to possess weapons.

I have told you this at least 3 times (that I can recall). And you have failed to even attempt a rational rebuttal.

So if you want to argue that an action or lack of action by Geirge Washington is what constitutes "The Law of the Land", and not the actual words written, go ahead. But that's a completely different topic.

Let me remind you how we got to this point: I was sitting here happily explaining to our Australian friend @chris155au ,how there have been instances in which the Constitution was modified (not interpreted, but actually modified) by activist justices. You insisted on debating the 2nd Amendment instead. Despite the fact that I told you that I was just giving an example, but discussing that in detail would be off-topic. You challenged me! And now that your own challenge bit you in the ass, you try to change the topic yet again. Where does it end?

 

In what way does it "suit" me? What does "suits you" even mean? .... if anything at all.

 

What law are you talking about?

Same as above.

Examples to support my statement "you make up crap" abound. When you use "you think" or "you believe" are fine examples. Usually when you make up arguments and ascribe them to me. You willl notice, as of this message, Hopefully you will notice that I am just ignoring the parts where you do that.

I don't remember. Too obvious for me to look up. The problem is you ask obvious questions meant to just waste my time. I don't know why you do that.

Invoked to prove what?

To a certain extent, yes. In the way the majority decision was drafted. It's a long explanation, so let's just leave it at "yes"

 

Sez U. Take a course in the English language. Look up the definition of "bear arms" here. Specifically,

Yours is blah, blah, blah from the ignorant who've had far too little schooling in the English language ...

 

Quotation "bear arms" from here: The Collins Dictionary

You need a weapon* to hunt?

Duhhhhhhh ...... . . . .

*Definition of weapon:

 

That doesn't even come CLOSE to the issue.

The argument from the gun nuts these days is that there can't be legislation that limits THIS amendment.

Others of the bill of rights have significant limitations. In fact, the second has limitations, too.

Yet, we see this nonsense that legislative bodies can't limit the second amendment - or, at least not any more than it is limited at present!!