Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
It's a good thing our constitution states otherwise. Also, driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
--Azurai
-
- Posts: 94
- Joined: May 31st, 2007, 1:30 pm
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)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.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Of course I do; they're from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In any case, your comments amount to little more than misdirection, and unsubstantiated attacks on the credibility of the statistics in question. Sure, they might be as you say; but without any evidence either way, they could very well be entirely accurate. Unless you're going to assume or assert that all statistics are mis-truths, simply stating that they could be wrong achieves little.Azurai wrote:Very easy: Crimes committed where a gun was in a vehicle owned by the person, even if the vehicle is off-site, is considered an armed offense. Also, how many random rapes in central park do you suppose follow the same principles as bank robberies? You have no idea what the source of those statistics even is.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
"The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"Mirkendargen wrote:Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"
The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
There was a quote reasonable definition of arms when the constitution was written: Any type of weapon a standard military soldier would normally equip and carry.Mirkendargen wrote:Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)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.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Iniliara wrote:"The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"Mirkendargen wrote:Would you support my right to have weaponized small pox? The line has to be drawn somewhere for the common good. (Not that I'm sure it's actually against any sort of explicit law to have weaponized small pox....but somehow I imagine the FBI would show up if someone were to have it.)
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"
The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).
Yawn.
By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
They sure do, but I'm not sure the relevance. The origin doesn't change the fact that they're contradictory with your constitutional freedom of speech.Xizorz wrote:Yawn.
By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
1. Yes, that is the result of politicians gaining too much power in the US. Contrary to the belief of most modern government officials, the Constitution is NOT a living document except in the sense that it can be amended. Most people, especially judges, seem to think that means it is open to interpretation when in fact, it's very plainly written.Iniliara wrote: "The right to bear arms, but not these ones or those ones"
"Freedom of speech, but no slander, libel or breaching of copyright"
"No cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless you're a foreigner"
"Right to a fair trial, unless we hold it in Cuba"
The constitution seems to work real well for you guys :).
2. Uhh, you can slander people all you want and print false stories. It isn't illegal (except when it's in the courtroom or official proceedings), but it is grounds for a civil suit (and in some rare cases criminal) if doing so causes harm to someone. Also note that a suit against someone for slander is very hard to win due to the first amendment, though it is possible if it is established that it was done in a malicious way specifically to damage someone's character or business. Also, I fail to see how copyright laws have anything to do with free speech. I don't recall a paragraph giving people the right to reproduce the works of others for profit in there.
3. Examples please?
4. Ditto, what exactly are you talking about?
Also, contrary to popular belief, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove a point via statistics, not those trying to dispute their lack of legitimacy due to no sources being supplied.
I can make up/repeat/twist statistics all day long and claim they come from important organizations but that doesn't make a prima facie case in my favor, which is something the liberal media also has yet to grasp.
--Azurai
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Dumbest statement of the year award. Also, all gods exist, cows are from the planet Venus and we actually evolved from plants. And M Night Shamanalanamaym is a good writer.Iniliara wrote:Sure, they might be as you say; but without any evidence either way, they could very well be entirely accurate.
--Azurai
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
No, they aren't, unless you bury your head in the sand and ignore any context or rationality. The Federalist papers and related documents relate the original intent of the people who wrote the document, and they specifically detailed their view on what certain provisions mean and don't mean. None of them would have considered slander to be upheld by any type of freedom of speech.Iniliara wrote:They sure do, but I'm not sure the relevance. The origin doesn't change the fact that they're contradictory with your constitutional freedom of speech.Xizorz wrote:Yawn.
By the way, slander laws date back hundreds of years to English law.
Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.
And copyright laws? Well, given that Article I provides an explicit mechanism for patents and copyrights, it would be rather absurd for Amendment I to prevent Congress from using this mechanism.
- Aus
- Homosexual Juggernaut
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: May 29th, 2007, 6:52 pm
- Location: Poughkeepsie, New York
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!Xizorz wrote:Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
What, that those groups of people have no reason or interest in looking at the original intent of the document or the people who wrote it?Aus wrote:That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!Xizorz wrote:Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.
They admit to it; it's called their Living Constitution theory.
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
The constitution was also originally written a long time ago, and while a gross departure is not OK, interpretation (in fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court) certainly is.
Short summary of every Jewish holiday: they tried to kill us, we survived, let's eat!
Re: Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..
Uh, no? It's in English, though I know most people can't get over the fact that the letter s looks like an f so they think it's YE OLDE SPEAKE.Xyrm wrote:The constitution was also originally written a long time ago, and while a gross departure is not OK, interpretation (in fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court) certainly is.
To be frank, the supreme court has way, way too much power because of the 'interpretation' that has become common place in the past century.
If you read the second amendment in the context in which it was written, it's quite clear what the right to bear arms referred to then and still should today: commercially available firearms, roughly equivalent or in some cases identical to army general issue battle rifles and sidearms. Do I think a citizen in good standing should be able to own a basic weapon like an M16? Yes. Do I think most citizens should be able to own a SAW or a flamethrower? No. Those are specialized weapons developed for specific uses in the military, not battle rifles. The second amendment was NOT implemented for the sake of people hunting game, that was merely a fact of life back then in most communities. It exists for the government to fear the people and not vice versa, which is unfortunately no longer true because our 'well regulated militia' is now segregated almost completely from the regular citizenry.
--Azurai