• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

See OP for 2-pat question


  • Total voters
    17
No, I have shown you saying something, and then shown your lie where you claim you didn't say it.

To prove you are a liar I quoted you lying.
 
No, I have shown you saying something, and then shown your lie where you claim you didn't say it.

To prove you are a liar I quoted you lying.

If I am not lying, then it is not a lie...
If you don't understand what I am talking about and need something cleared up, then ask.
Why would I lie in the first place, I would simply admit if I made a mistake, as I regularly do...
Just the other day I admitted to an error, really ,you try waaaayy to hard to be right, it is pathetically sad.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's all take it down a notch.



I don't waste time trying to notice that which doesn't exist.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to all people, and thus regulates the states.

Get used to it. It's history.

This is incorrect. I just don't know how else to say it. There is literally no backing for your misguided interpretation.
 
If I am not lying, then it is not a lie...
If you don't understand what I am talking about and need something cleared up, then ask.
Why would I lie in the first place, I would simply admit if I made a mistake, as I regularly do...


When is a lie not a lie? When it is not a lie... that is when. ;)
 
Well here is the direct proof of you lying :
I feel that the 2nd is clear and concise, and that it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right...
I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise.
and here is direct proof of you flip-flopping
Nope, rights are not a joke, the fact that people made them up and think that they are the end all is the joke.
Your "Right" to own a gun is nothing more than a joke of a man made law.
Catchya Later Flip-flopping Liar :2wave:
 
Well here is the direct proof of you lying :

and here is direct proof of you flip-flopping

Catchya Later Flip-flopping Liar :2wave:

I have proven what I meant out of those statements.
You have to "PROVE" that I intentionally did not mean what I say I mean,
Otherwise, at worse, I miscommunicated... do you really not understand
the simplicty of this? :lol:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Nope, rights are not a joke, the fact that people made them up and think that they are the end all is the joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Your "Right" to own a gun is nothing more than a joke of a man made law.

Now, "PROVE" that this is a lie...
It might be a contradiction, though it isn't,
But simply cutting and pasting them as any simpleton can do
is not "evidence" of anything other than you finally learned
how to cut and paste. ;)



:2wave:
 
Originally Posted by Voidwar
I have no problem if ... she is killed for her lack of compliance. Rights are things I will absolutely kill over.

right outa the horses mouth... :lol:
 
right outa the horses mouth... :lol:

I wouldn't be that concerned. That's one of those things that people say, but never actually act on. Every right that exists is currently limited by government in a non-trivial way. If rights were really worth killing over, why aren't people doing it already?
 
I wouldn't be that concerned. That's one of those things that people say, but never actually act on. Every right that exists is currently limited by government in a non-trivial way. If rights were really worth killing over, why aren't people doing it already?

I agree... but why even say it?
 
I wouldn't be that concerned. That's one of those things that people say, but never actually act on. Every right that exists is currently limited by government in a non-trivial way. If rights were really worth killing over, why aren't people doing it already?


I like what Heinlein had to say about this matter.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.


Infringements on rights come in many degrees. While they are tolerable, most of us tolerate them.

As our own Founders said, people are disposed to tolerate the familiar as long as it is tolerable, even when it infringes on their rights.

I think every man who has a pair, also has a line in the sand where he will say "No further." That line differs for each man.


G.
 
I like what Heinlein had to say about this matter.

Infringements on rights come in many degrees. While they are tolerable, most of us tolerate them.

As our own Founders said, people are disposed to tolerate the familiar as long as it is tolerable, even when it infringes on their rights.

I think every man who has a pair, also has a line in the sand where he will say "No further." That line differs for each man.


G.

I think that for the vast majority of people, that line is a lot more flexible than they would like to admit.
 
I think that for the vast majority of people, that line is a lot more flexible than they would like to admit.


I will not say that you are wrong. IIRC the American Revolution, in its early days, had the active support of only 3% of the population.

The question is, will the government ever, at some point, step over the "line in the sand" of too many citizens who will take active umbrage?

Perhaps we will see.


G.
 
Back
Top Bottom