The Clown in Chief

[layoutshooter]

I made it past the 6th grade. I know what infringement means. Common sense is common sense. If the Constitution is a "living breathing" document as it has been described then restrictions can be negotiated. The very fact that the document can be amended proves that.

There is only TWO LEGAL ways to change the the Constitution, amend it or call a Constitutional Convention. That is the mean, and ONLY LEGAL, meaning of the term"living breathing" document, not political whim.

Common sense? Explain how the 1994 bill was based on ANY kinds of sense, let alone "common sense". The words "politicians" and "common sense" really can never be applied to each other. There is no such thing as a politician with ANY kind of sense.

The Right of the People to own and carry arms is a basic human right of self defense. Defense of self, family and property is a right of all Mankind. The ability to deter a run away government is paramount to keeping government in check.

There was absolutely NOTHING in Clinton's ban, nor Obama's, that had a single thing to deter crime. Both bans did nothing but restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Making criminals of non-criminals always increases crime and prohibition has never worked in the past, is not working now and will never work in the future.

 

[layoutshooter]

Wild Paranoid Conjecture. By the way, that story about the frog is parable. A frog will jump out of the pot if it gets too hot. It's been proven time and again...

Really? They have been slowly outlawing firearms since the 1930's. The 1968 gun control act gave away the power of the People, through their elected representatives, to control imports of firearms and put in a restriction of "sporting purposes" as a means of disqualification, without ANY definition of what a "sporting purpose" is. That is despite the fact that the Right to own and carry arms has nothing to do with sporting purpose.

Yep, throw that frog into boiling water and it will try to get out. Warm it up slowly and it becomes supper.

 

[letzrockexpress]

There is only TWO LEGAL ways to change the the Constitution, amend it or call a Constitutional Convention. That is the mean, and ONLY LEGAL, meaning of the term"living breathing" document, not political whim.

Ok. but this doesn't refute my stand.

Common sense? Explain how the 1994 bill was based on ANY kinds of sense, let alone "common sense". The words "politicians" and "common sense" really can never be applied to each other. There is no such thing as a politician with ANY kind of sense.

Do you mean now or ever? Was Eisenhower not man with common sense?

he Right of the People to own and carry arms is a basic human right of self defense. Defense of self, family and property is a right of all Mankind. The ability to deter a run away government is paramount to keeping government in check.

Self defense is a basic human right. I definitely agree with that. Guns are illegal in the Philippines. Many there carry Machetes. It works as deterrent. Nobody wants to get hacked to death.

Making criminals of non-criminals always increases crime and prohibition has never worked in the past, is not working now and will never work in the future.

Could be. That hasn't been proven. I'm not sure how it could be proven.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Really? They have been slowly outlawing firearms since the 1930's. The 1968 gun control act gave away the power of the People, through their elected representatives, to control imports of firearms and put in a restriction of "sporting purposes" as a means of disqualification, without ANY definition of what a "sporting purpose" is. That is despite the fact that the Right to own and carry arms has nothing to do with sporting purpose.

Oh ok. I'm sorry to hear that you and your friends have had you guns taken away. What kind of guns did you have back when you owned them? Do you still have pictures of them so you can reminisce? I bet you miss those days...

Yep, throw that frog into boiling water and it will try to get out. Warm it up slowly and it becomes supper.

Nope. You can put him (or her) in the water when it is cold but once it heats up to a point he (or she) is uncomfortable he(or she) will jump out.

 

[layoutshooter]

I was 10 when Dwight left office. Presidents meant little to me then. Politics even less. Other than the Interstate Defense Highway System, I don't know much else that he did.

Can't prove that prohibitions, making criminals out of law abiding citizens increases crime? One only has to look at what happened during "Prohibition' with rum running, bootleggers etc and today's drug cartels and arrests of every day people who want to smoke a bit is proof enough for me.

Either the Constitution is changed correctly or the rule of law means nothing

 

[Ragman]

Yep, throw that frog into boiling water and it will try to get out. Warm it up slowly and it becomes supper.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I was 10 when Dwight left office. Presidents meant little to me then. Politics even less. Other than the Interstate Defense Highway System, I don't know much else that he did.

I was 5 days old when he left office but I still know what he did and what he stood for..

Can't prove that prohibitions, making criminals out of law abiding citizens increases crime? One only has to look at what happened during "Prohibition' with rum running, bootleggers etc and today's drug cartels and arrests of every day people who want to smoke a bit is proof enough for me.

I'm going to use your logic and say I don't know because I wasn't born yet... All I know is my Great Grandfather was a bootlegger during prohibition and he made more money then than at any other time during his life.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Oh ok. I'm sorry to hear that you and your friends have had you guns taken away. What kind of guns did you have back when you owned them? Do you still have pictures of them so you can reminisce? I bet you miss those days..."


Why is the government exempt from these bans. Do you even know what any of those bans were? Was it a good idea to take power away from the People and put it in the hands of an appointed regulatory agency? Have ANY of the bans EVER stopped a crime or reduced crime rates?

That is kind of a snarky statement in what was a good debate. That tends to happen when one's stance is weak.


I would try it but I always kill my food before I eat it. I don't wish to do undue harm to a frog to test it. Besides I only eat the legs. I have not gigged frogs for years. Used to enjoy that.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well I was 5 days old when he left office but I still know what he did and what he stood for...

What was that? How do you know it? 5 days old? ROOKIE!! LOL!!!

 

[Turtle]

I made it past the 6th grade. I know what infringement means.

I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have said, "Constitutional provisions aren't necessarily meant to exist unfettered or unrestricted," because "shall not be infringed" means literally and explicitly that it be, necessarily, unfettered and unrestricted. It means the right cannot be encroached upon, restricted, or weakened in any way. All of the Constitutional rights save one allow for the right to be fettered or restricted under certain circumstances. But the right to keep and bear arms is the one right where the Constitution specifically sets aside to be free from restriction.

As for the free speech aspect of threatening the president, that's not nearly as clear cut as you think it is. The courts have historically been reluctant to convict someone under 18 USC s 879(a)(3) unless it's the real deal, a genuine threat. If you e-mail the president that you're going to kill him, you're probably gonna get in trouble. If you post online that you're going to kill him, the chances are you won't. Look up the case of Walter Bagdasarian, who threatened to put a .50 cal bullet in Obama's head two weeks before the 2008 election, implored others to "shoot the nig," and then repeated those and other statements on election day. The Secret Service rightly investigated, and found that he had weapons in his home, including a .50 cal rifle. He as convicted under 18 USC s 879(a)(3) but the conviction was later reversed. The court ruled that, while they thought both he and his speech were repugnant, officially noting that he was "an especially unpleasant fellow," his speech was nevertheless protected by the first amendment.

The issue of threats and hate speech, especially online, does not lend itself to absolute pronouncements. If the law is too tough, freedom of speech will be constrained in the most important forum available today for the public to discuss politics. If the law is too lenient, it will allow the Internet to be used as a means of instilling fear, inciting violence, and organizing domestic terrorism. The courts strive to create that balance, even on such a volatile issue as threatening the president.

 

[letzrockexpress]

"Oh ok. I'm sorry to hear that you and your friends have had you guns taken away. What kind of guns did you have back when you owned them? Do you still have pictures of them so you can reminisce? I bet you miss those days..."


Why is the government exempt from these bans. Do you even know what any of those bans were? Was it a good idea to take power away from the People and put it in the hands of an appointed regulatory agency? Have ANY of the bans EVER stopped a crime or reduced crime rates?

That is kind of a snarky statement in what was a good debate. That tends to happen when one's stance is weak.


I would try it but I always kill my food before I eat it. I don't wish to do undue harm to a frog to test it. Besides I only eat the legs. I have not gigged frogs for years. Used to enjoy that.

Snarky? Maybe so.. What' wrong with a little snarkyness once in a while? Honestly, I don't believe in a total gun take away but I would really need to see clear, concise, unbiased research about crime to know for sure what , if any, gun restrictions would or will work. As a matter of fact I would also be interested in the movement Alex Jones supports where the Second Amendment is totally unrestricted in that everyone, felons or anyone else, can keep and bear arms. No limits, no restrictions. What do you think about that?

 

[layoutshooter]

Snarky? Maybe so.. What' wrong with a little snarkyness once in a while? Honestly, I don't believe in a total gun take away but I would really need to see clear, concise, unbiased research about crime to know for sure what , if any, gun restrictions would or will work. As a matter of fact I would also be interested in the movement Alex Jones supports where the Second Amendment is totally unrestricted in that everyone, felons or anyone else, can keep and bear arms. No limits, no restrictions. What do you think about that?

Snaryness detracts from useful debate.

Well, have any of the restrictions put on them in the past worked? I don't have any idea who Alex Jones is nor have I read his proposal. I do think that some felonies have no bearing on whether a person should have those rights restricted. I also believe that IF we are going to restrict felons from that right it is the responsibility of the government to PROVE they cannot have them. I should under no circumstances have to prove that I am NOT a criminal.

 

[letzrockexpress]

I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have said, "Constitutional provisions aren't necessarily meant to exist unfettered or unrestricted," because "shall not be infringed" means literally and explicitly that it be, necessarily, unfettered and unrestricted. It means the right cannot be encroached upon, restricted, or weakened in any way. All of the Constitutional rights save one allow for the right to be fettered or restricted under certain circumstances. But the right to keep and bear arms is the one right where the Constitution specifically sets aside to be free from restriction.

All amendments are subject to being amended or repealed. Not sure what you are getting at.

As for the free speech aspect of threatening the president, that's not nearly as clear cut as you think it is. The courts have historically been reluctant to convict someone under 18 USC s 879(a)(3) unless it's the real deal, a genuine threat. If you e-mail the president that you're going to kill him, you're probably gonna get in trouble. If you post online that you're going to kill him, the chances are you won't. Look up the case of Walter Bagdasarian, who threatened to put a .50 cal bullet in Obama's head two weeks before the 2008 election, implored others to "shoot the nig," and then repeated those and other statements on election day. The Secret Service rightly investigated, and found that he had weapons in his home, including a .50 cal rifle. He as convicted under 18 USC s 879(a)(3) but the conviction was later reversed. The court ruled that, while they thought both he and his speech were repugnant, officially noting that he was "an especially unpleasant fellow," his speech was nevertheless protected by the first amendment.

The point is the law exists. That it didn't stick on Mr. Bagdasarian is not the point.

The issue of threats and hate speech, especially online, does not lend itself to absolute pronouncements. If the law is too tough, freedom of speech will be constrained in the most important forum available today for the public to discuss politics. If the law is too lenient, it will allow the Internet to be used as a means of instilling fear, inciting violence, and organizing domestic terrorism. The courts strive to create that balance, even on such a volatile issue as threatening the president.

There are no absolutes, only opinions... If there were, for instance, Mr. Bagdasarian would probably be in jail.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Snaryness detracts from useful debate.

I disagree. I am sticking my tongue out at you while I disagree...

 

[layoutshooter]

I disagree. I am sticking my tongue out at you while I disagree...

That makes a big difference for sure!

 

[Turtle]

All amendments are subject to being amended or repealed. Not sure what you are getting at.

I'm not talking about amendments or repealings. I'm talking about what you just said, which I enclosed in quotes, which has nothing whatsoever to do with amending or repealing part of the Constitution.

The point is the law exists. That it didn't stick on Mr. Bagdasarian is not the point.

Hey, you're the one who introduced the straw man logical fallacy of freedom of speech as it applies to threatening the president in the attempt to make your case for an infringement on something that explicitly cannot be infringed upon. But, if your point is that "the law exists," then you must concede that "shall not be infringed" also exists.

There are no absolutes, only opinions... If there were, for instance, Mr. Bagdasarian would probably be in jail.

Actually, "shall not be infringed" is, in fact, an absolute. For you to think it's merely an opinion, which necessarily means it can change on a whim, indicates one of two things; that you lack a fundamental respect for the Constitution, or that you lack a fundamental understanding of it. Like I said, every Constitutional right allows for exceptions and restriction, except one, which is by definition an absolute.

As for the movement Alex Jones supports, that it is even called a "movement" is a sad commentary on society. The movement is one where where the Second Amendment is totally unrestricted in that everyone, felons or anyone else, can keep and bear arms. No limits, no restrictions. The reason it's a sad commentary on society is because "shall not be infringed" means no limits and no restrictions, totally.

If you want to keep and bear arms, you should be able to keep and bear arms. It's no different than if you want to keep and bear forks, or hammers, or ballpoint pens... or hands. It's what you do with them that matters. You may say that 'but, but, but, forks, hands, pens and hammers are different than guns,' but they're really not. If someone kills another using their bare hands, do you support infringing the rights of others to keep and bear bare hands? What if someone stabs you in the eyeball with a Bic pen? Should the sale and ownership of ballpoint pens be restricted to government agencies only?

 

[letzrockexpress]

I'm not talking about amendments or repealings. I'm talking about what you just said, which I enclosed in quotes, which has nothing whatsoever to do with amending or repealing part of the Constitution.

Oh. Well what do I know? I'm just some clown chasing the next load...

Hey, you're the one who introduced the straw man logical fallacy of freedom of speech as it applies to threatening the president in the attempt to make your case for an infringement on something that explicitly cannot be infringed upon.

Cannot be infringed upon unless and until at least 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate agree to consider an Amendment to a standing amendment or 2/3 of the States agree to a Constitutional Convention to consider a change to the Amendment. Not a fallacy.

But, if your point is that "the law exists," then you must concede that "shall not be infringed" also exists.

The phrase exists. yes.

Actually, "shall not be infringed" is, in fact, an absolute. For you to think it's merely an opinion, which necessarily means it can change on a whim, indicates one of two things; that you lack a fundamental respect for the Constitution, or that you lack a fundamental understanding of it. Like I said, every Constitutional right allows for exceptions and restriction, except one, which is by definition an absolute.

Who said it can change on a whim? I said it can be changed. It can. 'Infringed" by definition is an absolute. That is not to say that word cannot be infringed upon using the official procedure outlined for a Constitutional Amendment. I suppose we could argue semantics if you want to.

As for the movement Alex Jones supports, that it is even called a "movement" is a sad commentary on society. The movement is one where where the Second Amendment is totally unrestricted in that everyone, felons or anyone else, can keep and bear arms. No limits, no restrictions. The reason it's a sad commentary on society is because "shall not be infringed" means no limits and no restrictions, totally.

True. So the question then remains should there be any restrictions?

If you want to keep and bear arms, you should be able to keep and bear arms. It's no different than if you want to keep and bear forks, or hammers, or ballpoint pens... or hands. It's what you do with them that matters. You may say that 'but, but, but, forks, hands, pens and hammers are different than guns,' but they're really not. If someone kills another using their bare hands, do you support infringing the rights of others to keep and bear bare hands? What if someone stabs you in the eyeball with a Bic pen? Should the sale and ownership of ballpoint pens be restricted to government agencies only?

Actually I share that philosophy. If guns were ever to be outlawed a killer would find away to kill. That was why I used the Machete reference earlier. It is human behavior that is the real problem.

 

[layoutshooter]

But NONE of the proposed restrictions were done by Constitutional amendment. The 1930's law, the '68, Clinton's and everything that Obama is doing through executive order is, by it's very nature, unconstitutional. There has been no attempt to do anything in a way that is constitutional. NO effort what so ever. Their actions prove that the "rule of law" means nothing to them. Their actions show a total disregard for the law of the Land, the Constitution.

ALL restrictions should be put on government, not the People. The People are the ultimate power and it should remain that way.

 

[letzrockexpress]

But NONE of the proposed restrictions were done by Constitutional amendment. The 1930's law, the '68, Clinton's and everything that Obama is doing through executive order is, by it's very nature, unconstitutional. There has been no attempt to do anything in a way that is constitutional. NO effort what so ever. Their actions prove that the "rule of law" means nothing to them. Their actions show a total disregard for the law of the Land, the Constitution.

ALL restrictions should be put on government, not the People. The People are the ultimate power and it should remain that way.

What I am hearing you say is that you view these regulations as an affront to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned us of such future oppression. He told us very clearly that " The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" If you want to put your money where your mouth is I guess you could implement his ideas...

 

[layoutshooter]

What I am hearing you say is that you view these regulations as an affront to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned us of such future oppression. He told us very clearly that " The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" If you want to put your money where your mouth is I guess you could do that...

Things move slowly, regardless of what the news thinks. This is not a 20 second sound byte. There will come a day when the People say enough is enough. It has yet to come. It will. Just by the fact that time has not stopped it gets closer each day. IF that day comes while I can still fight, which is rapidly coming to an end, I will join in. Arthritis is limiting me more with each passing day.

It is a real shame that so many in this country care nothing about our Constitution or following it. It would seem that the indoctrination camps we call "public schools" are doing a great job of making them slaves to the government. Another good reason that the federal government has NO business in education. That is a VERY dangerous idea. VERY dangerous.

By the way, I don't see them as affronts. It is not an opinion. It is fact. One either follows the law or one does not. There is no gray area, no middle ground.