Jump to content

brambus

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Information

  • Location
    Austin
  1. I'm not intentionally leaving anything out. I'm just disagreeing that it is as clear as you say it is. If it were clear, then it wouldn't say "the people." Or it would use a clear biconditional statement instead of using unclear language. And this isn't only conservative judges that we are talking about. If the President or Congress acted unilaterally, without changing the Constitution, they'd be bypassing the courts. The courts are supposed to have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. It would be like a President declaring war without Congress (well, I guess that happens anyway).
  2. It's just that seem to be reading a biconditional (if and only if) into this that I just can't find. The amendment explicitly states that this right belongs to "the people," not just to a regulated militia. And that's generally how the courts have upheld it. Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done. I'm not arguing against that. I just don't feel as confident that the law, as written, already covers this.
  3. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be essentially arguing: 1) If you are part of an organized militia, then you can legally own a gun. 2) McDuck is not part of an organized militia. 3) Therefore, McDuck cannot legally own a gun. Maybe I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am, but that sounds like what you are arguing -- If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. Also, I'm a liberal, not a neo-con.
  4. Nothing about the amendment says that they must be organized 24/7. That's not even how militias worked at the time. They were normal, everyday people who only organized in times of trouble. The amendment says that this right belongs to "the people," not just to the organized militia. Plus, "Because X, then Y" is not the same thing as "Y if and only if X." "Because water can damage concrete over time, we should cover walkways" is not the same thing as "We should only cover walkways to prevent water damage, not for any other reason, and we shouldn't cover any other kind of concrete." "You should wear comfortable shoes when you are walking long distances" is not the same thing as saying "You should only wear comfortable shoes when walking long distances." Sorry, I'm all in favor of amending the Constitution for better gun control, but legal precedence and the wording of the current law is on their side. Also, the best you can prove if you are right is that the Constitution does not explicitly give this right to the public. That's not the same thing as saying that the public does not have that right.
  5. No. Look, if you want to overhaul the system, create amendments, etc., then let's do that. But current legal jurisprudence regarding "militia" is firmly on the side of the 2nd Amendment supporters. "Militia" does not only refer to the National Guard. The very same legislation that declared the National Guard our militia also declared . . . 10 U.S. Code 311 (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ( The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Also, just a grammatical issue here, nothing about the wording specifies that this right only applies to militias. "Because X, then Y" is not the same thing as "Y only when X is the case." And keep in mind how militias worked at the time. They didn't become "organized" until times of trouble. Until then, then were just normal, everyday citizens. An armed populace, familiar with firearms was pretty much a necessity in order to organize those militias in times of need. Again, I'm not saying everyone needs to own a gun, but the current law does protect almost everyone's right to do so.
  6. Denier logic: Humans can't cause forest fires because forest fires existed before humans were around.
  7. It's not just them. The Bible itself is plenty oppressive to women, gays and non-Christians. Every Christian government until recent history acted accordingly. Luckily, they eventually began adopting Enlightenment values. Plenty of modern Muslims are doing the same.
  8. You could just as easily say the same thing about Christianity. Luckily, most Christians in the modern world like to ignore those parts. We should welcome Muslims that do the same within their religion.
  9. From everything I've read, the consensus among economists seems to be that illegal immigrants are a net positive for the economy, and I've dug as much as I could to find dissenting opinions. As far as violent crime goes, every stat I've seen says that they commit less violent crimes than the native-born population. The sociopathy of the proposed solutions (lol, let's blow them up at the border, hu-yuk) tells me that I'm far safer around an illegal immigrant than among the nativist yokels who oppose them.
  10. Bah, it's all fake. Obviously a collective conspiracy between every major scientific organization (including every national Academy of Science), every peer review journal that has published on the topic, every major branch of science that has anything to say about the subject, etc. It's frightening to see a conspiracy theory so convoluted that it makes the "we didn't land on the moon" crowd look modest and sane, and yet it has a death-grip on one of our major political parties. Nice straw man. No one is saying that the earth hasn't gone through cycles. We're asking what the cause is for the rapid increase in warming rates in the last century. Luckily, science has the answer for that, no matter how many people decide to bury their heads in the sand.
  11. I'd wager left-handed people have killed far more than that, many times over. Shall we create a memorial for their victims? How about a monument for the victims of those who are native-born? Killed by southerners? Killed by white people? Killed by men?
  12. 80% of undocumented immigrants caught at the border have no criminal record? Wow, considering that the majority of undocumented immigrants aren't caught at the border, but came here legally and had to be relatively crime-free to get a visa in the first place, it is starting to look like your average undocumented immigrant has a better criminal record than your average native-born citizen.
  13. You've already asked and I've already answered. If you would like to debate or discuss, I'm open to that. If you just need a space to copy/paste without analysis or debate, I'll leave you to it.
  14. I've tried responding to it before, but all I get are "nyu-uh" arguments, "you are stupid" and reposting of the exact same videos. I'll try another swing, but I'll keep it brief until you show some sort of interest in an actual discussion or debate. People like Levin and Erler bet their careers on their followers not bothering to double-check their claims. I'll start with the claim that "jurisdiction" refers to some thinly-defined concept of "allegiance" that Erler hopes the anti-birthright crowd will just fill in the blanks on. Native Americans are provided as the litmus test, since they were born here , but did not "owe allegiance." In actuality, there was considerable discussion about the Native Americans, whether or not they owed allegiance and, if so, the nature of that allegiance. Howard later clarified that those who paid taxes were sufficiently within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to be covered by the amendment. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16 If you actually read the correspondence, you'll see that jurisdiction is clarified as involving taxation and those who are subject to our laws. Undocumented immigrants are subject to our laws. They can be brought to court and sued. If they cross the border illegally, they can be brought to trial for the crime (misdemeanor) of illegal entry. If they continue to cross the border illegally, the charge can become a felony. Those who enter legally, but who overstay their visas (i.e. the majority of undocumented immigrants) can be charged with the civil offense of unlawful presence. They can be charged with murder. They can be charged with theft. They can be charged with any crime you and I can be charged with. They are subject to our laws. Additionally, the vast majority of them pay taxes. Even by the standards of the time, they are under U.S. jurisdiction.
  15. Yes, yes, we've all seen the fringe theorist videos.

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • By teacher

    All lives matter.


  • By teacher

    Double post deleted.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...