- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
*coughCODE PINKcough* :roll:
My speculation was based on thier own words. :shrug:
*coughCODE PINKcough* :roll:
Refering to Bush as "Shrub" does not make you any soun any more intelligent than one using chimp for Obama. Just sayin. :2wave:
Refering to Obama as "the Obama" is a more accurate comparison because using "chimp" is probably meant in a racist fashion whereas "the Shrub" is not. Just sayin. :2wave:
I find you thinking black folks are like chimps racists.... :shrug:
Why is it. Bush=chimp good, obama=chimp racist.
Note i called neither a chimp. Just took this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy and racist ideals.
(playing the race card is easy! :ssst
Obama = Chimp Racist.
Bush = Chimp Scientific fact:mrgreen:
perhaps, seeing films of obama trying to throw a baseball or bowl I have concluded he doesn't have near the arm strength to be called a chimp.
Maybe an Obamatang though
Please quote me saying that I think Black folks are like chimps. FAILI find you thinking black folks are like chimps racists.... :shrug:
Why is it. Bush=chimp good, obama=chimp racist.
Note i called neither a chimp. Just took this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy and racist ideals.
(playing the race card is easy! :ssst
Please quote me saying that I think Black folks are like chimps. FAIL
Please quote me saying Bush is a chimp or that calling Bush a chimp is good. FAIL
Why don't you lie and troll somewhere else.
So you admit to lying just to bait me? :doh:lol: its not pretty when someone else applies the patented "nojingolingo race baiting method".......
:lamo at your reaction to someone responding like you do. :thumbs:
So you admit to lying just to bait me? :doh
Obama = Chimp Racist.
Bush = Chimp Scientific fact:mrgreen:
Moderator's Warning: |
Everyone needs to stop acting foolish with their baiting and personal attacks. |
It's a moot point. We've been ceding power to a centralized authority for over two hundred years now. At the turn of the 19th century a militia would do well to defend its state from an unwanted federal authority. Now, it would do nothing to defend its state from a wanted federal authority.
That's the bitch about the genie. You let her out of the bottle, and she doesn't want to go back in.
Don't be mistaken by the fact that an orangutan looks like a half filled sack of semi-melted butter. They are quite capable of ripping your arm off and using it to drive the rest of you through a wall.
Yeah it was a bitch that the US won the Civil War. We should still have right wing wackos running up and down the streets protecting themselves.
Anyone that espouses the views of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.... etc.what exactly is a a "right wing wacko" to you?
Question
How is a well REGULATED militia going to help defend against improper federal infringements on state sovereignty?
Anyone that espouses the views of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.... etc.
"
Returning to Europe in 1787, Paine soon entered the political debate launched by the French Revolution. His Rights of Man defended the revolution against the attacks of Edmund Burke and proffered a new vision of the republican state as a promoter of the social welfare, advocating such policies as progressive taxation, retirement benefits, and public employment. An even greater success than Common Sense, Rights of Man transformed English radicalism, linking demands for political reform with a social program for the lower classes."
Thomas Paine - A short history
"Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, published in 1797, which advocated the use of an estate tax to fund a universal old-age and disability pension, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens on reaching maturity. This is similar to the later philosophy of Georgism."
Agrarian Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."- 2nd Amendment
One shouldn't read the 2nd. Amendment's use of the words "well regulated",... without consideration for what (in the end) the "regulation" is intended.
"The security of a free State."
I submit that any regulation which is not in keeping with that intent "the keeping of a free State" would not be Constitutional.
This is ignorant postion on the lefts part.
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order"....
In order for there to be a militia in "good working order" all of the people should not be restricted in thier ownership and ability to keep and bear arms....
Duh.
I remember the source you posted earlier claiming such, but why should we trust that source?
His "working order" is not all that clear. More that disciplined or trained, maybe even under a command. The court has waxed and waned on this from the beginning. Early on it was seen as a collective right and not an individual one. Later individual. And back and forth. If the amendment was better written, I suspect it wouldn't still face contention today. And much of why it was written no longer applies today.
While I have no emotional feeling about weapons, I don't mind hunters having weapons to hunt with. I don't even mind someone who knows how to handle a weapon having one. Even crooks scare me less than idiots and the insane. But while I don't support banning weapons, reasonable control doesn't bother me.
I remember the source you posted earlier claiming such, but why should we trust that source?
it footnoted each and every time the phrase was used, and its oxford english dictionary of that time period.
The evidence and the proof meets all standards of requirments to be observed as an indisputale fact.
You are free to show me an opposing definition of that time if you so have it. :shrug: