Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Liberals prefer Women be Unarmed and Raped
SpicyExcel Joined Wed 10/31/12 Posts: 1622	Sun 03/10/13 02:34 PM
If you look at the Admendments you will find where the Supreme Court defined the word "INFRENGE" and the full statement made by the Supreme Court.

oldhippie1952 Joined Mon 03/14/11 Posts: 22693	Sun 03/10/13 02:35 PM
The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state." Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State." Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief. I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution. You are taking a big leap of faith thinking the USA would not go to that extreme. I don't trust them that much. They lie too much.

SpicyExcel Joined Wed 10/31/12 Posts: 1622	Sun 03/10/13 02:38 PM Edited by SpicyExcel on Sun 03/10/13 02:47 PM
where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols,or any other Arms? Government has no Business diddling with the Constitution,especially not by Presidential Fiat! Neither has a Majority the right to suspend Rights guaranteed under the Constitution! US is a Republic,last time I checked,not an Ancient Greek Mobrule Democracy! If your opinion is the Government has NO right in diddling with the Constitution then it should never originally been alter BY YOUR OPINION Conrad.

SpicyExcel Joined Wed 10/31/12 Posts: 1622	Sun 03/10/13 02:41 PM Edited by SpicyExcel on Sun 03/10/13 02:43 PM
The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state." Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State." Hitler looked at every Nationallity as an enemy of his State during his rein in power. He made an example of the Jewish nationallity because of their belief. I doubt the U.S Government is going to take that approach. The U.S. Constitution does not entitle the President of the U.S. to be in power during a moment of diagnosed mental illness. The President of the U.S. can after being medically clear resume his position of Head of State; stated in the U.S. Constitution. You are taking a big leap of faith thinking the USA would not go to that extreme. I don't trust them that much. They lie too much. Oldhippie again I did not bring the Nazi or the Jewish people into this conversation. I only replied to this statement made by someone else {{The thought also comes to mine that Hitler considered Jews to be "enemies of the state." Our government could designate anyone it pleases as "enemies of the State."}}.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sun 03/10/13 02:57 PM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sun 03/10/13 03:00 PM
where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols,or any other Arms? Government has no Business diddling with the Constitution,especially not by Presidential Fiat! Neither has a Majority the right to suspend Rights guaranteed under the Constitution! US is a Republic,last time I checked,not an Ancient Greek Mobrule Democracy! If your opinion is the Government has NO right in diddling with the Constitution then it should never originally been alter BY YOUR OPINION Conrad. simple,The Rights Of The People are NOT Negotiable! Seems you still do not understand the Nature and Purpose of a Constitution! http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/constitution.html Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

SpicyExcel Joined Wed 10/31/12 Posts: 1622	Sun 03/10/13 03:28 PM Edited by SpicyExcel on Sun 03/10/13 03:29 PM
where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols,or any other Arms? Government has no Business diddling with the Constitution,especially not by Presidential Fiat! Neither has a Majority the right to suspend Rights guaranteed under the Constitution! US is a Republic,last time I checked,not an Ancient Greek Mobrule Democracy! If your opinion is the Government has NO right in diddling with the Constitution then it should never originally been alter BY YOUR OPINION Conrad. simple,The Rights Of The People are NOT Negotiable! Seems you still do not understand the Nature and Purpose of a Constitution! http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/constitution.html Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government. The statement I made at the top of this page (6) is in reply too your statement "where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols, or any other Arms?" Where I pointed out the Supreme Court definition of the WORD "INFRINGE" in the Constitution. The Supreme Court did NOT define the word "INFRINGE" in regards to any other arm other than nuclear weapons and missles which the population are not permitted to possess. The Supreme Court did not refer to long-arms in this definition of the word "INFRINGE". The Constitution is to protect the people which I never made any INCLINATION that it wasn't to protect the people. It was your interpretation of my statements that I said this. There are other issue discussed in many statements in this thread, but your unwilling too make a remark towards those concerns of the poeple, which the Constitution is to protect. It leads me to believe that those concerns are valid points' of the people.

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Sun 03/10/13 04:18 PM
If you look at the Admendments you will find where the Supreme Court defined the word "INFRENGE" and the full statement made by the Supreme Court. The problem with that argument is that the SCOTUS was intended to be checked by a a jury. (John Jay insisted on the jury as a check on the SCOTUS, and was the first chief justice, btw) When they began making decisions like the one you mentioned, they became tyrannical.

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Sun 03/10/13 04:18 PM
If you look at the Admendments you will find where the Supreme Court defined the word "INFRENGE" and the full statement made by the Supreme Court. The problem with that argument is that the SCOTUS was intended to be checked by a a jury. (John Jay insisted on the jury as a check on the SCOTUS, and was the first chief justice, btw) When they began making decisions like the one you mentioned, they became tyrannical.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 03/10/13 04:44 PM
How's that gun control working for Canada?

Leigh2154 Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 16479	Sun 03/10/13 04:49 PM
How's that gun control working for Canada?

SpicyExcel Joined Wed 10/31/12 Posts: 1622	Sun 03/10/13 08:47 PM Edited by SpicyExcel on Sun 03/10/13 08:53 PM
How's that gun control working for Canada? How how is the U.S. going to deter mass killing. Are the private citizens going to increase the number of police officers so their children are not shot too death, injured, while attending school or your family members' in a mall shopping for you during the holiday season. As for the definition of INFRINGE the issue of case law was brought into discussion by one of your comrads. Case law is used not by the whole case but with portions of it that reflect upon the issues at hand. Nor did I say I was against individuals owing guns who were mentally stable and not drug addicts'.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 03/10/13 09:58 PM
Well, thank God this ain't Canada. They confiscated all the weapons from the loons and dopers. Ooops. They must have exempted the violent criminals and now they are a country left to whine about being victims unable to protect themselves. Hey U.S. Learn from them. Don't allow gubament to confiscate OUR means of defense.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 03/11/13 12:30 AM
and how many mass shootings and massacres happen in canada? its really never as simple as people try to make it,, CULTURE plays a large part, and we have lot of sick subcultures in the US that it makes sense to regulate weapons,,,, some of the most 'violent' states are some of the most lax in gun laws, ,so are some of the least,,,,,,,poverty and law enforcement also play a part,,,

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Mon 03/11/13 01:20 AM
and how many mass shootings and massacres happen in canada? its really never as simple as people try to make it,, CULTURE plays a large part, and we have lot of sick subcultures in the US that it makes sense to regulate weapons,,,, some of the most 'violent' states are some of the most lax in gun laws, ,so are some of the least,,,,,,,poverty and law enforcement also play a part,,, would you like to back up that Statement,like with Chicago,Illinois,NY,NY,all of California,for instance!

karmafury Joined Sun 11/12/06 Posts: 10156	Mon 03/11/13 03:07 AM Edited by karmafury on Mon 03/11/13 03:10 AM
How's that gun control working for Canada? Apparently .... not too bad. Would be better if American guns stayed in U.S. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/31/number_of_gun_homicides/194 Or there is this... https://www.impartial-review.com/stories/would-canadian-laws-prevent-mass-murders-in-the-us

Surmar Joined Sun 02/17/13 Posts: 240	Mon 03/11/13 03:43 AM
I'm 5'2", around a 100Lbs, the Average Man could simply do whatever he wanted with me; my .38 is the only thing I have to make me an Equal to a Rapist, or anyother man that wishs to do me harm when I'm in Public. I ALWAYS CARRY my Gun when I'm out; and not to leave anything to chance, with a Toy Gun (That looks like my .38 but for the Orange plastic) I practice with my Husband on what to do if the Unthinkable happens - Attacked from behind, grabbed from the side, different forms of assaults so that I would have a basic plan pre-programmed if I need it; and practice with my Husband tends to be Fun, Fun, Fun. No one who trys to Disarm me is my Friend, though I'm forgiving of the Well Meaning Ignorent who had bought into lies; I'd rather have the Perp pee on himself when he's looking down the business end of my gun.

Surmar Joined Sun 02/17/13 Posts: 240	Mon 03/11/13 04:02 AM
Actually, you didn't provide the quote I asked for. Please feel free to try again, though. CUCS stated that "Being Passive" is better than carrying a Gun for Self-Protection during a Rape. The only way I'd be Passive during Rape is in I'm Knocked Out or Dead; I'd fight with everything I have, including my .38

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Mon 03/11/13 04:16 AM
I still wonder what Part of,"The Right Of The People To Own And Bear Arms",the Antigunners do not understand?

Leigh2154 Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 16479	Mon 03/11/13 04:26 AM
Actually, you didn't provide the quote I asked for. Please feel free to try again, though. CUCS stated that "Being Passive" is better than carrying a Gun for Self-Protection during a Rape. The only way I'd be Passive during Rape is in I'm Knocked Out or Dead; I'd fight with everything I have, including my .38 This post strikes a cord with me Surmar...Unlike you, I do not carry a weapon, but like you I know myself well enough to know I would fight, resist!..I have heard this "theory" stated time and time again and always by an authority figure...It is ludicrous to think that every woman is going to react the same and even more ludicrous is assuming that during an attempted rape the victim is in control of their emotions when, in fact, it is fear and a "natural" instinct to survive that dictates...People have the right to own and bear arms....Our Constitution guarantees it!!

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Mon 03/11/13 04:42 AM
where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols,or any other Arms? Government has no Business diddling with the Constitution,especially not by Presidential Fiat! Neither has a Majority the right to suspend Rights guaranteed under the Constitution! US is a Republic,last time I checked,not an Ancient Greek Mobrule Democracy! If your opinion is the Government has NO right in diddling with the Constitution then it should never originally been alter BY YOUR OPINION Conrad. simple,The Rights Of The People are NOT Negotiable! Seems you still do not understand the Nature and Purpose of a Constitution! http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/constitution.html Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government. The statement I made at the top of this page (6) is in reply too your statement "where in Heck does the 2nd specify Pistols, or any other Arms?" Where I pointed out the Supreme Court definition of the WORD "INFRINGE" in the Constitution. The Supreme Court did NOT define the word "INFRINGE" in regards to any other arm other than nuclear weapons and missles which the population are not permitted to possess. The Supreme Court did not refer to long-arms in this definition of the word "INFRINGE". The Constitution is to protect the people which I never made any INCLINATION that it wasn't to protect the people. It was your interpretation of my statements that I said this. There are other issue discussed in many statements in this thread, but your unwilling too make a remark towards those concerns of the poeple, which the Constitution is to protect. It leads me to believe that those concerns are valid points' of the people. by your insistence to infringe on the Rights of the People you actually ARE negating the Constitution!