DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 30, 2018 Report Share Posted October 30, 2018 Get a room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 I can see the three of them including the new butt wipe marching along like the human centipede. 😲 WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: I can see the three of them including the new butt wipe marching along like the human centipede. 😲 WSS And what exactly are the rest of you? Your insult calling us a human centipede is muffled because your mouth is literally attached to Cals anus right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: And what exactly are the rest of you? Your insult calling us a human centipede is muffled because your mouth is literally attached to Cals anus right now. Ahh the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. Well played. 😂 WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 "arms" refers to guns, not the exact model that was common at the time. The Founding Fathers were exceptionally brilliant. The 2nd Amendment, as was the entire Constitution, etc, was written on God-given PRINCIPLES. I know liberals don't understand what they are. But a PRINCIPLE doesn't go away just because a couple of hundred years later, some belligerent bitch-mode emotional knee jerks say that weapon designs have changed. The principle does not change. Guns in common use at the time, at OUR time, still logically apply to the PRINCIPLE of citizen gun ownership. Self-defense weapon ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: I can see the three of them including the new butt wipe marching along like the human centipede. 😲 WSS "The Three Poopeteers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 When a Dem plays this game with executive orders in the future, the same people praising Trump now will be shi-tting glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 no, obaMao already did that, and his exec orders were leftwing politically motivated. and UNConstitutional. Obama Has Lost in the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern ... https://www.cato.org/.../obama-has-lost-supreme-court-more-any-modern-president Jul 6, 2016 - This term, however, confirmed a very real phenomenon: the Obama ... of cases would essentially allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants without ... United States(2016), the court reversed the conviction of a former ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded ... https://www.politifact.com/.../gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/ Jun 29, 2014 - "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts ... He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Obama's immigration plan dealt big blow by Supreme Court ... https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html Jun 23, 2016 - Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan .... Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Cool, so Trump is like Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 Just now, LogicIsForSquares said: Cool, so Trump is like Obama. Only better. 😀 WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Westside Steve said: Only better. 😀 WSS I thought Obama was a dog turd so Trump is just the diet dog turd haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, calfoxwc said: "arms" refers to guns, not the exact model that was common at the time. The Founding Fathers were exceptionally brilliant. The 2nd Amendment, as was the entire Constitution, etc, was written on God-given PRINCIPLES. I know liberals don't understand what they are. But a PRINCIPLE doesn't go away just because a couple of hundred years later, some belligerent bitch-mode emotional knee jerks say that weapon designs have changed. The principle does not change. Guns in common use at the time, at OUR time, still logically apply to the PRINCIPLE of citizen gun ownership. Self-defense weapon ownership. Then why was the Bill of Rights added years after the Constitution was ratified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 you still haven't learned to do ANY research on your own? Don't you understand ANY FREAKING THING that you SHOULD UNDERSTAND? The Bill of Rights came afterwards, to specify INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. have one of your gay fellow birdbrains teach you how to look stuff up. Do you live in a cardboard box that looks like a tree? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html Introduction & History of the Bill of Rights The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected. As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10). The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787. In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." James Madison reads his proposed Bill of Rights in the First Congress James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a "parchment barrier." (Madison's preference at the Convention to safeguard liberties was by giving Congress an unlimited veto over state laws and creating a joint executive-judicial council of revision that could veto federal laws.) Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison's view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally--in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson--Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of individual rights against the other branches. When the First Congress met in 1789, James Madison, a congressman from Virginia, took upon himself the task of drafting a proposed Bill of Rights. He considered his efforts "a nauseous project." His original set of proposed amendments included some that were either rejected or substantially modified by Congress, and one (dealing with apportionment of the House) that was not ratified by the required three-fourths of the state legislatures. Some of the rejections were very significant, such as the decision not to adopt Madison's proposal to extend free speech protections to the states, and others somewhat less important (such as the dropping of Madison's language that required unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in all federal cases). Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." Decades later, the Ninth Amendment would be pointed to by some judges, such as Justice Goldberg in his opinion in Griswold v Connecticut (a case recognizing a right of privacy that included a right to use contraceptives), as a justification for giving a broad and liberty-protective reading to the the specifically enumerated rights. Others, such as rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, would dismiss the Ninth Amendment as analogous to "an inkblot on the Constitution," a provision so unclear in its significance that judges should essentially read it out of the Constitution. Most of the protections of the Bill of Rights eventually would be extended to state infringements as well federal infringements though the "doctrine of incorporation" beginning in the early to mid-1900s. The doctrine rests on interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as prohibiting states from infringing on the most fundamental liberties of its citizens. (For more, see page on INCORPORATION DEBATE.) In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There has just been opposition enough" to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential "energy." George Washington agreed: "They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 So you're saying the Constitution wasn't perfect, so they modified it to make it better? Interesting. Ah, who am I kidding. We've been down this path enough, you aren't going to get it. Unless the change is something you want, like no Mexicans or no gay marriage. Then I'm sure you'd do the mental gymnastics to tell me why it's ok to change it. Well, you won't. The Blaze will, and you'll parrot it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said: I thought Obama was a dog turd so Trump is just the diet dog turd haha. Now that, sir, was funny. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 22 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Good to see the left-wing lunatics are now becoming rock ribbed constitutional purists. WSS LOL! And good to see the Trumpettes have given up the Constitution to the Great Pumpkin 🎃 on Halloween. So I guess that leaves independents like me to defend the 2nd amendment now as well as the 14th. Besides starting a new savings project for a new 22 rifle, I will start another for one of those self-propelled 8" howitzers which apparently is ok by the 2nd amendment if we follow the logic cal has brought to the table. 💥 🧐 EDIT: Man just think how much survivalist crap I can load up into one of those babies. Plus no one will fu.ck with me when loading up on fuel.🤩 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: LOL! And good to see the Trumpettes have given up the Constitution to the Great Pumpkin 🎃 on Halloween. So I guess that leaves independents like me to defend the 2nd amendment now as well as the 14th. Besides starting a new savings project for a new 22 rifle, I will start another for one of those self-propelled 8" howitzers which apparently is ok by the 2nd amendment if we follow the logic cal has brought to the table. 💥 🧐 EDIT: Man just think how much survivalist crap I can load up into one of those babies. Plus no one will fu.ck with me when loading up on fuel.🤩 Hey. Said the Constitution is a joke all along. The Fourteenth Amendment is stupid. But just a pain in the butt not an actual death blow to society. Do you have any opinions on issues other than the fact that you hate Trump? Anchor babies, yes or no? By the way, facetious or not, if you are bragging about defending the Second Amendment with a 22 rifle single shot you're sort of admitting that the Second Amendment is already done for. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 One more thing, whether or not it's feasible to override the Constitution with a presidential order is not the point. The point is reminding people that the 14th Amendment is not a good Amendment and has been bad for the country when all is said and done. That's a big deal in today's political world. It doesn't matter if you can actually solve a problem with a tweet it's just reminding people that there is a problem. And again while people on both sides like to Proclaim loudly that well every other country or no other country, depending on the issue, does something take note that no other country has something like the 14th Amendment. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: LOL! And good to see the Trumpettes have given up the Constitution to the Great Pumpkin 🎃 on Halloween. So I guess that leaves independents like me to defend the 2nd amendment now as well as the 14th. Besides starting a new savings project for a new 22 rifle, I will start another for one of those self-propelled 8" howitzers which apparently is ok by the 2nd amendment if we follow the logic cal has brought to the table. 💥 🧐 EDIT: Man just think how much survivalist crap I can load up into one of those babies. Plus no one will fu.ck with me when loading up on fuel.🤩 I'm starting to wonder if you are Cleve's "other brother Darryl" (sorry, Bob Newhart show reference). Conservatives only exist because the control our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from tyranny. Now, you make no sense about "leaves it up to...." It's because of liberal "independents" like you, our gov has gone out of control. Just imagine if your Higgardly had gotten elected. Our country is in big, serious trouble, and it can get a lot worse. All the dirty garbage heaped upon reps now, like the Kavanaugh hearings....and if Pres Trump has oatmeal for breakfast with white toast, you would call him a "racist". I find great fault with your being facetious all the time, but you keep ignoring the fact that woodypeckerhead and cleve will think a howitzer is a personal assault weapon that can be conceal carried. Shame on you, Tex. You shouldn't take advantage of extremely ignorant liberal base jockeys like woodpecker and cleve, it's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 27 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: Hey. Said the Constitution is a joke all along. The Fourteenth Amendment is stupid. But just a pain in the butt not an actual death blow to society. Do you have any opinions on issues other than the fact that you hate Trump? Anchor babies, yes or no? By the way, facetious or not, if you are bragging about defending the Second Amendment with a 22 rifle single shot you're sort of admitting that the Second Amendment is already done for. WSS a joke? sorry, Steve-0, but our Constitution and Bill of Rights is the ONLY glue that has held us together as a free country for our 200+ years. One more thing, whether or not it's feasible to override the Constitution with a presidential order is not the point. The point is reminding people that the 14th Amendment is not a good Amendment and has been bad for the country when all is said and done. That's a big deal in today's political world. It doesn't matter if you can actually solve a problem with a tweet it's just reminding people that there is a problem. And again while people on both sides like to Proclaim loudly that well every other country or no other country, depending on the issue, does something take note that no other country has something like the 14th Amendment. WSS The 14th Amendment was sadly necessary, but was poorly written, and misinterpreted over time - per the Founding Father's intentions - it needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, per an impending national emergency, it needs to be stayed until clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Westside Steve said: By the way, facetious or not, if you are bragging about defending the Second Amendment with a 22 rifle single shot you're sort of admitting that the Second Amendment is already done for. WSS I'm a really excellent shot. I can put 5 rounds from a 22 rifle into a 5 inch circle from 50 yds without a scope when I zero it in at 25 yds. first. You just have to figure in the drop and any crosswinds. 🧐🌬️🎯🥇 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, calfoxwc said: I'm starting to wonder if you are Cleve's "other brother Darryl" (sorry, Bob Newhart show reference). Conservatives only exist because the control our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from tyranny. Now, you make no sense about "leaves it up to...." It's because of liberal "independents" like you, our gov has gone out of control. Just imagine if your Higgardly had gotten elected. Our country is in big, serious trouble, and it can get a lot worse. All the dirty garbage heaped upon reps now, like the Kavanaugh hearings....and if Pres Trump has oatmeal for breakfast with white toast, you would call him a "racist". I find great fault with your being facetious all the time, but you keep ignoring the fact that woodypeckerhead and cleve will think a howitzer is a personal assault weapon that can be conceal carried. Shame on you, Tex. You shouldn't take advantage of extremely ignorant liberal base jockeys like woodpecker and cleve, it's just wrong. Apparently I have to educamate you too cal. This is the self propelled 8" howitzer which is why you can carry a ton of survival gear in it. Plus you can conceal yourself in it and only need a driver's license in this state because your "car" is part of your home. LOL!🤠🤩 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, calfoxwc said: a joke? sorry, Steve-0, but our Constitution and Bill of Rights is the ONLY glue that has held us together as a free country for our 200+ years. One more thing, whether or not it's feasible to override the Constitution with a presidential order is not the point. The point is reminding people that the 14th Amendment is not a good Amendment and has been bad for the country when all is said and done. That's a big deal in today's political world. It doesn't matter if you can actually solve a problem with a tweet it's just reminding people that there is a problem. And again while people on both sides like to Proclaim loudly that well every other country or no other country, depending on the issue, does something take note that no other country has something like the 14th Amendment. WSS The 14th Amendment was sadly necessary, but was poorly written, and misinterpreted over time - per the Founding Father's intentions - it needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, per an impending national emergency, it needs to be stayed until clarified. So can the 2nd amendment be "poorly written and misinterpreted over time" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 "I agree with Trump" I disagree with Trump "OH MY GOD DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINIONS OF YOUR OWN??? *link to blaze*" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Ahh the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. Well played. 😂 WSS finish chewing cals turds before u post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 16 hours ago, MLD Woody said: No, it's all good. Cal posted an article that says "well the amendment says arms not muskets. so that argument doesn't count".... .... what How Shmucking dense is that author? the writers of the constitution clearly didnt foresee a time when ur neighbors could open up on an intruder with long rifle causing rounds to come into ur home. clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 36 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: fuk i wanna drive to work in one of those, why cant i drive around down like this, TELL ME WHY LIBERALS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 31, 2018 Report Share Posted October 31, 2018 35 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: So can the 2nd amendment be "poorly written and misinterpreted over time" as well? Maybe on your planet where birds post smart butt crap all year long. You don't read anything, ever, do you? The 14th Amendment dealt with emancipated slaves and their offspring. It was a dynamic necessary assertion of a permanent right. The flaw is, that "under the jurisdiction" is ignored, and the meaning of it never established by the Supreme Court. Any amendment can have a flaw - the 2nd Amendment - like all of them - is a dynamic necessary assertion of a permanent right. The leftwing desire to MISinterpret the 2nd Amendment, deliberately and vindictively - is not a flaw with the 2nd Amendment as it is a corruption of a leftwing movement to score a gigantic victory in trying to establish permanent control over our government. This, btw, is just another one of your stupid diversions of subjects. How can you seriously think that the 14th Amendment dealing with the abolition of slavery non-citizen issues is related to the absolute right of American citizens to be permanently allowed to have their own guns for self-protection from tyranny, individually and collectively as an American populace? Just once, go read some relevant stuff before you smart off and make yourself look like the birdbrain arse you are. READ the Constitution. READ the Bill of Rights. READ the Federalist Papers. Understand the function of the Supreme Court. Understand the critical difference between "originalism" and "activism". And for God's sake, READ SOME FREAKING AMERICAN HISTORY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.