Your logic is dizzying

[desert dude]

Ahh, the good ole days. Nothing like yearning for the time when women knew their role, and we could openly discriminate against others over the color of their skin.

We have really lost our way ....

Only about 40% have lost their way.

 

[cannabineer]

Only about 40% have lost their way.

Cannot resist. cn

 

[Red1966]

demonstrably false. 1 out of every 20 americans doesn't believe in a simple background check. overgeneralization. i can not come up with any democrat who favors outright bans. the only bans being called for are on weapons of war, not self defense or hunting. and since you seem to agree that we should have "common sense gun safety measures", what is the difference between those measures and "controls"? also, gun ownership is a right, not a "liberty", it is a right. and every right is abridged. the right to own a gun was included for "the militia" to ensure "the security of a free state". as it was written, that pretty much meant to repel invading armies.

" the right to own a gun was included for "the militia" to ensure "the security of a free state". as it was written, that pretty much meant to repel invading armies." is only your own interpretation. SCOTUS disagrees with you. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

 

[Red1966]

how many of our members legislate in washington? so you support gun controls then. good to know, fellow comrade. they decidedly penned "the security of a free state". their idea was that the muskets they used could overthrow their own government if need be. not sure they ever imagined nukes, chemical weapons, tanks, and assault rifles. overthrowing our own government only applies if you view the constitution as an evolving, living, document. so it's your choice. either option is generally unacceptable to righties, although cannabineer has no such conflict as a radical centrist.

"overthrowing our own government only applies if you view the constitution as an evolving, living, document" The silliest statement you've made today.

 

[Red1966]

then you're out of your element here. and you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution. go back to your toy robots and such, you are outmatched and too easily trolled for the politics section.

"a dead constitution"? WTF is that? The counterpart to a "living" constitution is a "strict interpretation". Applying a false negative label to what you disagree with is dishonest.

 

[Red1966]

Our logic is just fine. By the end of this post you'll understand why. I propose meat eating controls. Children who torture animals are likely to kill people too. Once you kill, it desensitizes you. Eating meat can desensitize to the point of torturing animals. I don't propose banning. But there must be measures in place which identify these crazy people. So before I issue you a meat eating license, you must first have background checks. This so we don't have people like Jeffrey Dahmer again. See, all you meat eaters are selfish. Just because of your meat eating hobby, you'll risk another Dahmer who eats people! So what's the harm in what I propose? Does the fact I'm a vegan give you doubts of my motives? If you think it does, then it's the same what I think your motives are who want gun control.

I propose plant eating controls. Children who torture plants are likely to kill people too. Once you kill, it desensitizes you. Eating plants can desensitize to the point of torturing vegtables. I don't propose banning. But there must be measures in place which identify these crazy people. So before I issue you a plant eating license, you must first have background checks. This so we don't have people like Jeffrey Dahmer again. See, all you plant eaters are selfish. Just because of your plant eating hobby, you'll risk another Dahmer who eats people! So what's the harm in what I propose? Does the fact I'm a meat eater give you doubts of my motives? If you think it does, then it's the same what I think your motives are who want gun control.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your ignorance of American history is appalling. Read the federalist papers, and the statements of the constitution's authors. The second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Its main purpose, but not its only purpose, is to assure that American citizens have the tools necessary to put down tyrants should they arise, i.e. our own government should it no longer function as our representative but instead as our oppressor. That is why our leaders have worked so hard to undermine the second amendment.

For the first 150 years of our republic there was not a hint of "gun control" except to deny slaves, and later emancipated freemen, from access to arms. That is one of the main purposes of the 14th amendment: to guarantee the right of freed blacks to "keep and bear" so that they could defend themselves from the goon squads roaming the south during reconstruction. You constantly whimper about racism, yet you align yourself with a fundamentally racist enterprise, disarmament of honest, free men.

you're living in the way, way history, douchenozzle.

first of all, do you still think of black people as "free men"?

your silly, outdated logic applies to cannon balls and bayonets, not nuclear arms and chemical warfare. you're about 100 - 200 years late to the party. no wonder you spend so much time licking the underside of rawn pawl's old nutsack.

 

[UncleBuck]

" the right to own a gun was included for "the militia" to ensure "the security of a free state". as it was written, that pretty much meant to repel invading armies." is only your own interpretation. SCOTUS disagrees with you. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

so you only read parts of amendments? and others, like the 14th, you don't read at all?

"a dead constitution"? WTF is that? The counterpart to a "living" constitution is a "strict interpretation". Applying a false negative label to what you disagree with is dishonest.

try to keep up with the times, you dithering racist prick. i didn't call the constitution "dead dead dead dead dead", someone on the SCOTUS did. dumbass.

 

[desert dude]

No point in discussing constitutional principles with somebody who has none. When the constitution means nothing, we are a nation of men and not laws. The second amendment takes on greater importance as the legal framework of our society erodes.

 

[UncleBuck]

No point in discussing constitutional principles with somebody who has none. When the constitution means nothing, we are a nation of men and not laws. The second amendment takes on greater importance as the legal framework of our society erodes.

aren't you the same moron who wanted someone deported for exercising their freedom of speech?

review your last sentence, it doesn't even make any goddamn sense.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I propose plant eating controls. Children who torture plants are likely to kill people too. Once you kill, it desensitizes you. Eating plants can desensitize to the point of torturing vegtables. I don't propose banning. But there must be measures in place which identify these crazy people. So before I issue you a plant eating license, you must first have background checks. This so we don't have people like Jeffrey Dahmer again. See, all you plant eaters are selfish. Just because of your plant eating hobby, you'll risk another Dahmer who eats people! So what's the harm in what I propose? Does the fact I'm a meat eater give you doubts of my motives? If you think it does, then it's the same what I think your motives are who want gun control.

I wasn't playing madlibs.

 

[desert dude]

you're living in the way, way history, douchenozzle.

first of all, do you still think of black people as "free men"?

your silly, outdated logic applies to cannon balls and bayonets, not nuclear arms and chemical warfare. you're about 100 - 200 years late to the party. no wonder you spend so much time licking the underside of rawn pawl's old nutsack.

When, exactly, did the meanings of the words in the second and fourteenth amendments change?

 

[cannabineer]

When, exactly, did the meanings of the words in the second and fourteenth amendments change?

Does it matter? We should be grateful to the News Editors watching such things for us, as we are a simple folk and unversed in the ways of strategic semantics. cn

 

[Red1966]

so you only read parts of amendments? and others, like the 14th, you don't read at all? try to keep up with the times, you dithering racist prick. i didn't call the constitution "dead dead dead dead dead", someone on the SCOTUS did. dumbass.

What has the 14th to do with conversation? Nothing. Just you're typical feeble attempt at misdirection.Your the one who tried to misquote and misinterpret the Constitution. "Racist"? Really? Your bringing race into it? And you did call it "dead". Liar.

 

[Red1966]

I wasn't playing madlibs.

I was........

 

[desert dude]

What has the 14th to do with conversation? Nothing. Just you're typical feeble attempt at misdirection.Your the one who tried to misquote and misinterpret the Constitution. "Racist"? Really? Your bringing race into it? And you did call it "dead". Liar.

Buck was quoting Scalia who said, sarcastically, "the constitution is dead, dead, dead..." in a public speech at a University.

 

[Red1966]

Buck was quoting Scalia who said, sarcastically, "the constitution is dead, dead, dead..." in a public speech at a University.

"you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution" doesn't sound like a quote of Scalia.

 

[desert dude]

"you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution" doesn't sound like a quote of Scalia.

I withdraw my defense of RIU's resident retard. Carry on.

 

[fb360]

"you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution" doesn't sound like a quote of Scalia.

Yeah he was just being typically asinine, trying to put me down.

 

[UncleBuck]

What has the 14th to do with conversation? Nothing. Just you're typical feeble attempt at misdirection.Your the one who tried to misquote and misinterpret the Constitution. "Racist"? Really? Your bringing race into it? And you did call it "dead". Liar.

it was actually scalia who called it dead, stormfront red.

deader than your wife and kids