The Fair and Balanced ACLU. These guys are SO funny!

[Widewing]

Steve, I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for whatever reason you want. Heck. I own guns and if they were banned then I'd choose to break the law by keeping them.

But in my opinion there was enough of a question of what the 2nd actually says- the addition of that militia thingie casts a shadow of doubt on the intention of the Framers.

As far as the ACLU goes, if you don't believe in what they're doing then don't send them your money.

Did you read the decision yet? If not, you can read it here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Court clearly shows the relationship between the prefatory clause and the operative clause beginning on page 6.


My regards,

Widewing

[lazs2]

twentyfo.. you do sarcasm badly.. I mean really badly.. you sound shrill when you do it.

You also lie even worse than your hero osamabama.   I don't think anyone here ever believed you when you told us in other threads that you were for our second amendment rights just as no sane person believes osamabama has had a change of heart about banning guns.

Oh.. you do realize that about 100,000 citizens do own automatic weapons and enjoy them without any problem to you or your sissy friends in the least.

If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions..  I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one.

lazs

[moot]

Lazs at this point TF has no idea what he's saying.. One of his friends or parents probably saw the conversation he was replying to on his bedroom computer and told him to just not bother with "racists", "neocons", etc.  He's past trying to make sense of anything or trying to get to the bottom of things himself and prolly isn't interested anyway.  Who cares about whether what you say is right or wrong when everyone agreeing with you is more important than the truth?  Especialy if seeing the heart of the matter takes effort and challenges old (relatively in TF's case ) habits.

[Carrel]

Sheeesh Lazs, just moments ago you said this-

 "I see that liberal democrats are the ones who cause most of this divide with their inability to keep their nose out of everyone else's business of which they know nothing."

And now you say this-

"If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions..  I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one."

 If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.

Too funny.

[Speed55]

 If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.

Too funny.

(Opens Can of Worms)

The right to LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[moot]

Sheeesh Lazs, just moments ago you said this-

 "I see that liberal democrats are the ones who cause most of this divide with their inability to keep their nose out of everyone else's business of which they know nothing."

And now you say this-

"If I wanted to get elected the way the liberal democrats get elected.. using their morality.. to get their money and votes I would say that I was for a womans right to murd.. er.. choose... with some safe and sane restrictions..  I would leave out that the safe and sane restrictions I would put in place would be that no woman under the age of 65 be allowed to have one."

 If it's an issue that offends your core beliefs- abortion, for instance- then you're all for the Government sticking their nose into someone else's business.

Too funny.

It's a clause if statement.

[Carrel]

(Opens Can of Worms)

The right to LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh, I get it! If the issue is important enough, in your opinion, then you're all for Government regulation.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

[Speed55]

That's why i said, opens can of worms.   It's one of those topics that seems to be interpreted by different people in different ways.

I believe abortion in normal circumstances is murder.   

In abnormal circumstances, such as a rape victim, i see nothing wrong with giving the mother a choice for a mercy killing. 

That might sound hypocritical to you, but it's what i believe.

I don't want to hijack this topic though.

[Toad]

Oh, I get it! If the issue is important enough, in your opinion, then you're all for Government regulation.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

I think it is clearly a States Rights issue. Abortion legality should be determined at the State level and not the Federal level.

If you've done any research on Roe v Wade, there was some mighty stretching of the Constitution to fit that one in and some chicanery behind the scenes to manipulate the decision in another case to make that decision support Roe.

Part of the "etc." Blackmun invoked as precedent was Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 decision that extended the right to contraception to single people. This was a sham, however: The justices designed the precedent to suit the progeny. Justice William Brennan's draft of Eisenstadt, which was circulated months after oral arguments in Roe, "was obviously crafted to apply in the abortion context," Greenhouse writes, noting that Brennan made the unnecessary assertion in Eisenstadt that the right to privacy entailed a right to choose whether to "bear" a child. Days after the court handed down Eisenstadt, Blackmun worked a reference to it into a draft of Doe, and later into Roe. Meanwhile, a federal court in Connecticut took the cue, declaring that Eisenstadt established a right to abortion. Justice Lewis Powell advised Blackmun to follow the Connecticut court's reasoning, and Blackmun ultimately did so, completing the daisy chain.

Crooked as a dog's hind leg.

Let the States decide.

[/hijack] Start another thread if you like.

[Carrel]

I think it is clearly a States Rights issue. Abortion legality should be determined at the State level and not the Federal level.

There's another of the conservative hypocrisies- "Less Federal Government- Let States decide their own laws." That lasts until the States decide to implement something the Conservatives don't agree with- gay marriage, for example- then we need a federal mandate to prohibit those behaviors.

[Toad]

Strawman arguement.

I doubt you'll find a true conservative/libertarian that thinks the Feds should do anything more than what the Constitution originally allowed them to do, the enumerated powers of the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

The States should be sovereign in all else.

Not popular with the socialists here though.

[midnight Target]

So you are OK with California deciding for gay marriage Toad?

[Toad]

Yep, of course.

I doubt you can search up a post of mine saying anything otherwise. You've probably already forgotten that my position on that is that being married should not convey any special treatement (taxes, inheritance, health care, etc.) on anyone gay, straight or otherwise. So, once you cut out all special treatment, this whole marriage thing is moot. In any event, why should they not have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us? 

States rule!

Of course, I'd never, ever live in CA      Not because of their stance on gay marriage though; the entire package of state law is just so fubared I would never consider it. Their taxes, their gun laws, their PC BS laws.... damn shame because in the north half I've seen a lot of places I'd probably like a lot.

But hey... we've got 50 states to choose from and I hear places like Idaho and Montana are beautiful and the legislatures aren't run by a bunch of socialists with their heads up their poop chutes. 

[lasersailor184]

So you are OK with California deciding for gay marriage Toad?

We are OK with the PEOPLE of california deciding the issue of Gay Marriage.


Last I heard, didn't they decide against it?

[midnight Target]

Leaving civil rights issues up to a majority vote is just plain stupid.