pseudobio Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Marbury vs. Madison also established the Court's right to interpret the Constitution, otherwise known as "Judicial Review".The Supreme Court also ruled that the Healthcare bill is constitutional. They can say raping little timmy infront of the white house would be constitutional when its not. As to the right to own handguns and rifles, I am a supporter, but military grade automatic weapons, RPG's, handgrenades, ect. should remain in the hands of the military alone. How to use red cross dynamite, Du Pont farmer's handbook - USA - 1912 This is a Handbook for Farmers how to use Dynamite. You could buy dynamite in every hardware store in these days and people didn't go postal on each other. I wanna live in a society where i can trust my neighbours to handle Dynamite.I wanna allow them to buy TNT again. I want these freedoms back. Hell, i want a RPG in every Household! The Swiss have plastic explosive and Hand grenades in their houses! What kind of pussy whimpy bunch of minus-men did we become?? And here is something i totaly forgott. What the Traitor Alexander says about the other Traitor Alexander.jason alexanderLet's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia: Alexander Hamilton was probably a british agent just as Benedict Arnold was. He allways wanted a central bank, owned by european banking families and married into the Rothschild family till he was shoot by Aaron Burr.Thats how to deal with Traitors Aaron! ^5 . You seem to be missing my point Moving. I said the Court has the right of "Judicial Review", but that doesn't mean we have to like every decision they come to in a review. The Court had the right to review Marbury's claim to the commission he was offered, and the Court had the right to review the Health Care Bill, but as to what conclusion they came to in each case will always be debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm seeing lots of ad hominem style retorts to what I thought was a pretty logically written piece, from an outsiders perspective. If you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread. There's a slight irony in that he talks about people such as this within his long tweet... If there's one thing I've noticed about most of American politics, and Americans, it's that it's so damn black and white. From the many Americans I've spoken to on the matter, if they support a party then they support them no matter what they do or say. If you're a democrat then Obama can do no wrong. If you're a republican then Romney can do no wrong. It's utterly ridiculous. I generally vote for the right-wing party in the UK, the Conservatives, but my god I don't agree with everything David Cameron does or says and I'm very vocal in both my support when he gets it right and my condemnation when he gets it wrong. I think it's safe to say all the folks I know here are very similar as well. Yes, we have a bias and a preference, but we don't let that bias or preference dictate and pollute our own beliefs and opinions. I have not found many Americans that are like this during my time, and it's very disappointing to see. Your second paragraph there speaks directly to what I see is one of the major issues in this country. The whole "my party, right or wrong, but, MY party." mindset has ensured that nothing gets accomplished in congress, or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. The bitter partisan divide is readily apparent wherever you look on the net. I note that online editions of newspapers that allow comments on articles is a PRIME example of this. My party is right, the other party is a bunch of drooling idiots, that don't have a clue....... It's scarey....... and does not speak well for the future of this nation. Problem being, the politicians are CULTIVATING this divide, to their own benefit. (and the expense of the nation as a whole) I don't see that changing any time soon..... Truly unfortunate. Really wanna get scared? So much so that you have to laugh? Read some of the comments in the Rants and Raves section of Ann Arbor Craigslist........ THOSE folks REALLY worry me. As for the article referenced in the opening post....... I might give it a bit more credence if it wasn't so obviously slanted to the anti-gun side. His statistics are WAY over-blown, making his conclusions suspect as well. What's really funny is, some of the correlations of severely restrictive gun control laws, and crime in various locations. For instance, have a look at this chart, showing the murder rate in Washington DC. http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png Please note the handgun ban really didn't do a thing for the murder rate in DC. It spiked anyway. The general national trend of murder rate has been declining steadily in any event. How about Chicago? http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago-full.png We see pretty much the same pattern here. Handguns are banned, there is an initial decline in murder rates, and then a serious spike..... followed by another decline, which also follows the national trend. And everyone remembers Florida, the Right to Carry, and Stand Your Ground? Well, how's this for an interesting tidbit: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida-full.png Wow, would you look at that? Right to carry is enacted, and the murder rate plummets! Amazing. And Texas: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/texas-full.png Wow, imagine that! Same trend....... Granted, the rates were on the way down in any event, but, where are all the murders that are supposed to come from everyone and their cousin being armed? Where are the shootouts on the streets? Mass Mayhem?? Could it be, that the folks that are actually LAW ABIDING CITIZENS obey the law? Wow. Whodathunkit. If you deprive honest citizens of the right to keep and bear arms, all your are doing is taking guns, and the protection they provide, away from the exact WRONG group you are attempting to target. Criminals, by their very definition are NOT "law abiding", banning anything isn't going to prevent them for possessing said item. In a society where the criminals are assured their victims are unarmed...... the criminals have the power. All information provided here, plus, a BOATLOAD more, is presented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Wow, would you look at that? Right to carry is enacted, and the murder rate plummets! Amazing. And Texas: Wow, imagine that! Same trend....... How are the first 2 graphs following the national trend and Florida and Texas aren't doing that very thing? Alone those graphs would show quite convincingly that banning carry or allowing weapon carry does next to nothing in each of those places> each individual city/state shown pretty much just follows the national trend in homicides. I'm not seeing any case being made that either one does much, considering each implementation of those rights are staggered on about an average of 7 years from each other and thus individually can't be suggesting that would directly affect the national trend. If the graph was doing something that was inverse to the national trend, or all state no/carry laws were brought in on a single year, perhaps then some sort of conclusion could be drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Here's a question for anti-gun people: "Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window or the front doorof your house saying 'I am an anti-gun person--there are no guns in this[car/house]'" If not, then it doesn't matter what Jason Alexander says ... or anybody else, because the bottom line is self protection ... nothing can equate toprotecting your own ... no pacifistic or good natured or humanistic arguement will mean anything when the criminal stands over your wife or child unless of course you want them dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moveing Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Dark0neIf you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread.Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. IDark0ne generally vote for the right-wing party in the UK, the Conservatives, but my god I don't agree with everything David Cameron does or says and I'm very vocal in both my support when he gets it right and my condemnation when he gets it wrong.Thats funny. You realy bought into this stuff. Call them right wing... Thats funny. claiming a right to gun ownership as a "free white male"comparing the PPACA to child rapeaccusing Alexander Hamilton of being a British spy aligned with the International Bankers' ConspiracyMWSource or Stormfront?Okay when your red buddies, these Stalin Fans, talk about Bankers Conspiracy every little enterprise comes in the crosshairs as evil exploiter. But when i mention Hamilton married into the Rothschild Banking Family, its rightwing/nazitalk.Communists allways use these tactics to set up debating barrages. But that doesn't work on me, and i don't care under which factitious words you try to steal first the freedome of speech, than our guns untill we get lined up behinde the tool shed in a labor camp.By the way. If you wanna go down the line, in the end of the day your child will be forced to take vaccinations or they don't get treatment from your beloved socialist healthcare system. Yeah, it is child rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 QuoteDark0neIf you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread. Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. *munches popcorn and listens to Metallica "For Whom The Bell Tolls" * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moveing Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 QuoteDark0neIf you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread. Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. *munches popcorn and listens to Metallica "For Whom The Bell Tolls" * Nice to see you don't have a dog in this fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. Are you old enough to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moveing Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. Are you old enough to vote?You wanna kidding me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 QuoteDark0neIf you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread. Listen Tommy, there is no such thing as a compromise between freedome and the lose of freedome. It is black and white. And when someone says, we should give up freedom for the greater good, he sounds exactly like Mao and these other Hellspawn. *munches popcorn and listens to Metallica "For Whom The Bell Tolls" * Nice to see you don't have a dog in this fight... I'm sorry. I don't understand that. Are you making a joke? If you mean a debate post..then I have plenty. But I don't want to start posting and getting interested in a topic I will be moderating. Now...onto gun control *whoosh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts