You seem to be hung up on two things, the length of the thread and insulting me. Isn't tolerance something preached from your side of the aisle? Or is tolerance just another opportunity for a double standard?nvxplorer said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You seem to be hung up on two things, the length of the thread and insulting me. Isn't tolerance something preached from your side of the aisle? Or is tolerance just another opportunity for a double standard?nvxplorer said:LOL
You really have run out of ideas. (Well, that's not to say that every one of your posts haven't been anything but unsupported assertions.)
Page 70. Woo hoo!
That's not arguable, is it?JustOneWay said:So the ACLU is a communist organization?
The U.S. Army, if they ever get their wayAnd which army will back up the ACLU's gun confiscation command,
Through the courts, just like they're doing nowand how will the ACLU exert control over us?
I never suggested there was one, I merely gave my presiction for what may happen in the long runHave you found an ACLU ruling that demands that citizen(s) must relinquish their firearms? I only ask because it would help the credibility of your claim that it is the ACLU's agenda and history.
Of course, but the NRA doesn't present itself as a civil liberties union. they are up front about having a single major point of concern, unlike the ACLUnotto said:I guess the same could be said of the NRA, right?
There's no penumbra involved. The wording is clear, the Founding Fathers were clear. The left, however, has dostorted the meaning. That's evidentNathan Poe said:If they didn't write it into the Amendment itself, it's irrelevent, according to you.
You're the strict Constitutionalist, and now all of a sudden you're claiming the penumbra of an unrelated document.
Not inconvenient, irrelevant. The Founding Fathers stated in the amendment why they implemted itBut as long as you want to discuss the Authors' intent, why is it that you omitted the fact that the reason for the Second Amendment, and the maintenence of "a well-regulated militia," was because the Founding Fathers were originally against the idea of America keeping a standing army?
Why is it that you omitted that our FFs had seen what a militaristic society had done for the Greeks and Romans, a class of people dehumanized by constant militarism, separate and resentful of the civilian populace, leading eventually to civil war and destruction?
Why did you omit thisa in discussing the Founding Fathers? Because those facts are far too inconvenient.
No matter how many times you make those false accusations, they remain false. I never stated a viewpoint on any of those issues other than to say that what the Constitution doesn't address is left to the statesYour viewpoint, as you yourself express it, is amusing enough. You seem to be in favor of Obscenity, Libel, death threats, and unlimited firearms, because the Constitution doesn't explicity state otherwise.
Don't look now, but I'm not the one whiningNope. Why aren't you whining about that?
The amendment has been misinterpreted, that's clearThe Second Amendment has been well-interpreted thanks to over a century of precident. Why are you so afraid of the courts?
They are clearly able to pick their own causes, just like the ACLU. But the ACLU cannot call itself a defender of the civil liberties when it ignores the liberties that offend their philosophyNathan Poe said:Because they are allowed to pick and choose their causes, right?
It requires no support because it is merely my prediction based on observationNathan Poe said:It would be appreciated if you could support this with something other than raving paranoia.
Appreciated, but not expected.
The legal grounds are that the Constitution gives the states the authority. It's as simple as thatElectric Skeptic said:You were asked what were the legal grounds for making sodomy illegal in the first place. You replied "The Constitution". So now you're saying that the constitution contained no legal grounds for making sodomy illegal - it just contained grounds for leaving that decision to the states. So now the question just becomes what were the legal grounds the states used to make it illegal?
Not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates the double standardThat may well be true, but it's irrelevant to your ridiculous claim.
To be accurate, I believe I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were a facadeFor whatever reason (whether you asked for them or not) a number of cases where the ACLU supported Christians were given to you - and your response was that they are just a facade - presumably to hide the ACLU's terrible anti-Christian agenda.
Yes, and in choosing such a misinterpretation, they denied the student the right to free speech and the free exercise of religionNope. The ACLU chose the interpretation of the establishment clause - one with with the SCOTUS agrees - to prevent government interference in people's religious beliefs. If you like, it's censorship, just as it's censorship that you're not allowed to yell 'Fire!" in a crowded theatre
And that still holds true today, the people need to bear arms to protect it from it's own government in the event the government becomes oppressive.If you bother to read the entire amendment, it's pretty obvious that the people are the ones given the right to bear arms so they can have a well-formed militia.
I demonstrated otherwiseGreat. They don't. The ACLU doesn't get funded by taxpayers.
What I can't believe is the way some liberals get into a conversation like this and rapidly stoop to personal attacks and insults, thus exposing yet another double standard, namely the philosophy of toleranceimind said:i can't believe this thread is still going on, and i cant believe the same lies are still being told about the aclu. apparrently, some christians have no problem with blatantly lying.
Except that it doesn't ignore any liberties, and you haven't evidenced that it does.MachZer0 said:They are clearly able to pick their own causes, just like the ACLU. But the ACLU cannot call itself a defender of the civil liberties when it ignores the liberties that offend their philosophy
No, that's the legal capacity. Nobody doubts that they had that. What are the legal GROUNDS for making sodomy illegal?MachZer0 said:The legal grounds are that the Constitution gives the states the authority. It's as simple as that
All it demonstrates is that somebody misunderstood what you were asking for - it certainly doesn't say anything about any double standard.MachZer0 said:Not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates the double standard
Yes, you did. And it's a ludicrous thing to say, and one for which you cannot offer the slightest support.MachZer0 said:To be accurate, I believe I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were a facade
In choosing such an interpretation, which was backed up by the court, they denied the student the right to free speech IN THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. Just like you are denied the right to free speech in a movie theater when you want to yell "Fire!" Yell it at home by yourself all you want.MachZer0 said:Yes, and in choosing such a misinterpretation, they denied the student the right to free speech and the free exercise of religion
For the purpose of forming a well-regulated (note that; REGULATED) militia. Nothing else.MachZer0 said:And that still holds true today, the people need to bear arms to protect it from it's own government in the event the government becomes oppressive.
No, you didn't - and can't. The ACLU receives no governement funding whatsoever.MachZer0 said:I demonstrated otherwise
nvxplorer said:The neutrality claim is a coverup. The ACLU really wants to seize all guns and use them to shoot the pets of conservatives. Why can't you see that?
No it is not. The ACLU is not communist.MachZer0 said:That's not arguable, is it?
The army wants to take the guns as well? Is our army also communist?MachZer0 said:The U.S. Army, if they ever get their way
As I posted earlier, now is when you need to start producing ACLU lawsuits that are meant to separate the American citizen from his/her gun, and I am not talking about assault weapons. Otherwise you are just stating falshoods that would merit an apology to the ACLU organization.MachZer0 said:Through the courts, just like they're doing now
For a person who readily rejects conspiracy theories, you do certainly know how to push a few whoppers on the rest of usMachZer0 said:I never suggested there was one, I merely gave my presiction for what may happen in the long run
MachZer0 said:It requires no support because it is merely my prediction based on observation
MachZer0 said:The legal grounds are that the Constitution gives the states the authority. It's as simple as that
Not irrelevant at all. It demonstrates the double standard
Yes, and in choosing such a misinterpretation, they denied the student the right to free speech and the free exercise of religion
And that still holds true today, the people need to bear arms to protect it from it's own government in the event the government becomes oppressive.
I demonstrated otherwise
MachZer0 said:What I can't believe is the way some liberals get into a conversation like this and rapidly stoop to personal attacks and insults, thus exposing yet another double standard, namely the philosophy of tolerance
US v Miller said:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Maybe you should study theior rootsJustOneWay said:No it is not. The ACLU is not communist.
Maybe you could explain the ACLU's reticence in light of the situations I previously mentioned. And for your information, assault weapons are merely the start.As I posted earlier, now is when you need to start producing ACLU lawsuits that are meant to separate the American citizen from his/her gun, and I am not talking about assault weapons. Otherwise you are just stating falshoods that would merit an apology to the ACLU organization.
Let's keep those peronal attacks pouring in. People need to see the double standard (tolerance?)For a person who readily rejects conspiracy theories, you do certainly know how to push a few whoppers on the rest of us
Schools are inanimate objects. They have no rightNathan Poe said:What about the school's rights?
You may disapprove of the facts, but that does not make it a lie. I substantiated my claim, deal with itNo, you told a lie, and got called out on it.
Looks like they misinterpreted it to me. What part od shall not be infringed do some folks not understand?Nathan Poe said:So Mach, what exactly was the flaw in SCOTUS' ruling in US v Miller? AFAIK, all the "infringements" to the Second Amendment can be traced back to there.
Looks like they read both halves of the Second Amendment.
Exactly, and we the people need to be armed when the militia needs to be assembledElectric Skeptic said:For the purpose of forming a well-regulated (note that; REGULATED) militia. Nothing else.
Oh yes they do. I know folks don't like it, but it remains true, nonethelessNo, you didn't - and can't. The ACLU receives no governement funding whatsoever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?