Posts: 42,600
Threads: 545
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
I only used the BATFE and the GCA of 1934 because I am very familiar with it. Were I an environmental scientist specializing in hydrology, I'm sure there is a lot of EPA I could point to.
Adding an adendum to the GCA clarifying triggers and firing should be pretty easy.
I've watched legislative sessions where they rip through votes on minor clarification votes.
Yeah, sooooo realistic with the Russia the NRA controlling half the House.
You are always free to leave. As flawed as the US is, there are billions who have it worse than us. Why don't you ask those begging for entrance what THEY are fleeing from.
A true patriot isn't afraid to face his nation's flaws.
A true patroit fights for other's rights, even if they don't value them themself.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
Not when that right involves ignoring the first half of the amendment on which it is based, and which results in a gun death rate 10x higher than our peers (who see us, correctly, as gun-crazy).
Posts: 7,021
Threads: 429
Joined: May 2025
Smote wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
I only used the BATFE and the GCA of 1934 because I am very familiar with it. Were I an environmental scientist specializing in hydrology, I'm sure there is a lot of EPA I could point to.
Adding an adendum to the GCA clarifying triggers and firing should be pretty easy.
I've watched legislative sessions where they rip through votes on minor clarification votes.
Yeah, sooooo realistic with the Russia the NRA controlling half the House.
You are always free to leave. As flawed as the US is, there are billions who have it worse than us. Why don't you ask those begging for entrance what THEY are fleeing from.
A true patriot isn't afraid to face his nation's flaws.
A true patroit fights for other's rights, even if they don't value them themself.
Not if those alleged "rights" are made up BS from unqualified jurists hell-bent on dismantling the nation and turning it into a plutocracy.
Posts: 42,600
Threads: 545
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.
Posts: 23,055
Threads: 580
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
4
If you've armed yourself properly, then you get to have your rights as you see them regardless of what anyone else thinks of them. Everyone else can either face the barrel of your gun or leave the country. Do I have that right?
Posts: 7,021
Threads: 429
Joined: May 2025
Smote wrote:
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.
The rights of corporations to enhance their profits do not trump the civil liberties of the people of the nation.
Posts: 42,600
Threads: 545
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.
The rights of corporations to enhance their profits do not trump the civil liberties of the people of the nation.
One of those civil liberties is the Right to Bear Arms. Says it there in the Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights, just after the Right to Free Speech.
Corporations do not have the right to profit, otherwise corporations would never go bankrupt. My business is an S corp. At no point have I ever seen anything in writing that says I have a Right to enhance my profits. If you can show me where that is, I would be grateful.
Posts: 16,804
Threads: 723
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Smote wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.
The rights of corporations to enhance their profits do not trump the civil liberties of the people of the nation.
One of those civil liberties is the Right to Bear Arms. Says it there in the Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights, just after the Right to Free Speech.
Corporations do not have the right to profit, otherwise corporations would never go bankrupt. My business is an S corp. At no point have I ever seen anything in writing that says I have a Right to enhance my profits. If you can show me where that is, I would be grateful.
Perhaps it is extrapolated from “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” ?
Posts: 7,021
Threads: 429
Joined: May 2025
Smote wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
I see. So, if you don't agree with them, someone elses Rights are disposeable. How very Republican of you.
The rights of corporations to enhance their profits do not trump the civil liberties of the people of the nation.
One of those civil liberties is the Right to Bear Arms. Says it there in the Constitution, in the part called the Bill of Rights, just after the Right to Free Speech.
There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. The text of the amendment and its entire drafting history clearly spell out that the right belongs to militias under the control of state governors.
An activist judge on the take made up the individual right by ignoring half of the text and pretending that the rest implied the individual right. Funny thing: He claimed to be an originalist. But by then everyone paying attention knew that he was a lying sack of sh!t.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
From [encyclopedia] Brittanica, on line:
Despite the [recent] Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to “keep and bear Arms” for the purpose of self-defense in the home. Indeed, for more than two centuries there had been a consensus among judges as well as scholars that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia. However, by the late 20th century the “self-defense” interpretation of the amendment had been adopted by a significant minority of judges. The self-defense view also seemed to be taken for granted by large segments of the American public, especially those who consistently opposed gun control.
A number of those "significant minority of judges" ended up on the SCOTUS, where in narrowest possible split decisions, the [new] majority decided to blithely ignore judicial precedence, throw out 200+ years of case law, and make up rights that had never been read into the Constitution before.
That's the state of things now, and like Roe, the result is a predictable mess, F'ed up beyond all recognition, solely on the basis of politics.
But that's not how you should expect it to stay.
|
