Reply
Super Contributor
tape
Posts: 10,785
Registered: ‎07-29-2008

Re: Gun Control explained

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/newly-hired-school-guard-leaves-unattended-handgun-in-student-...

Someone can start a new thread about this if they want to. Because I can't on the new forum.
Please use plain text.
Contributor
Mossy Mossy Moss
Posts: 60
Registered: ‎01-17-2013

Re: Gun Control explained


mauser wrote:
When your rights are what the government says they are, you have no rights.

You have government granted privileges.

If you're ok with that, then may your chains rest lightly upon you.

 

Yes, I saw that George Carlin bit too

I HAVE SPOKEN
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 13,049
Registered: ‎06-02-2009

Re: Gun Control explained


yanktar wrote:

I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this.  Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.


It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision.  And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration.  But it's not law, it's something distinctly different.  The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not.  When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic.  Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

 

I have noticed that those who deny God also deny their own humanity
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 13,049
Registered: ‎06-02-2009

Re: Gun Control explained


yanktar wrote:

The big RWN phony about the SCOTUS making laws, which of course, you're OK with as long as it's the Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Kennedy/Roberts arm that's doing it.  Otherwise you are deliberately garbling what I'm saying: which is that Constitutionality must be decided somewhere, and that somewhere is the SCOTUS.  FDR was horribly frustrated when they knocked down so much of the New Deal, but he didn't park the army at the courthouse. He abided by it and tried to get around it. Nixon abided by it. The WHOLE NATION abided by it when it picke the loser as President in 2000. The "silly" one is you, who refuses to recognize 200 years of legal precedent.

 

I should respond to this - yes, I agree with "must be decided somewhere" and if we agree that SCOTUS is the final word, ok, that's what I mean by "binding arbitration".  I just don't agree that this has the status of law, and I think Congress should take back it's proper role as the reprentatives of the people (Instead of the body that hands out favors to rich contributors)


But the court HAS made law, no two ways about it.  Roe v Wade is an egregious example.  Have you ever read the decision?  I mean, they went so far as to make up dates when you can have an abortion and when you can't.  They wrote law, no two ways about it, and it was wrong to do so.

I have noticed that those who deny God also deny their own humanity
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 5,932
Registered: ‎09-23-2004

Re: Gun Control explained

Everyone wants democracy extended to themselves .....then no further

 

Phil

Founding member of Harmony Unacoustic Activities Committee
Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
yanktar
Posts: 11,836
Registered: ‎08-12-2011

Re: Gun Control explained


Used2BMarkoh wrote:

yanktar wrote:

I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this.  Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.


It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision.  And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration.  But it's not law, it's something distinctly different.  The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not.  When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic.  Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

 


Markoh, you are a hopeless fool who doesn't realize you keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

Without judicial review you have no checks and balances, a KEY element of the Founding Fathers.

Judicial review and precedent is just as much part of the body of law as the law itself. Without judicial review every small town cop can say "I AM the Law" and actually be correct.  He can be arbitrary.  He can be cruel. He can be dishonest.  He can blatantly violate your rights. ONLY judicial review gives YOU, the individual, the right to fight back. Otherwise, government officials not only write the laws, they decide WHAT those laws mean, and, funny thing, it always means EXACTLY what benefits them most.

Only judicial review controls that, is the check and balance.  It's one of the BETTER things we got from Mother England.

Your dislike with Roe v Wade (criticised for things other decisions are OK with) has led you to justify tossing out the baby with the bath water.


Thankfully, America is safe from your bizarre twisted judicial thinking.

“ What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic.” -- Bill Clinton

"A FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Davo17
Posts: 26,742
Registered: ‎03-24-2009

Re: Gun Control explained

an attempt to make the school guards seem unwise. nice try.
DSM-IV 301.95 Progressive Personality Disorder
A. A pervasive pattern of progressive political and inter-personal thought and action, rooted in discredited leftist (neo-Marxist) beliefs, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following (individual must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for the diagnosis of Progressive Personality Disorder, as many of the criteria are age-appropriate for adolescents). This disorder often coexists with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Utopian thinking, e.g. a delusional belief that there exist simple, linear, side effect-free solutions to all social problems.
Lack of historical knowledge and perspective, and repression of personal memories dissonant with this belief system. e.g., the national mood post 9-11, including that of PPD patients, is suppressed in order to avoid conflict with subsequent reversal of beliefs as the PPD delusions were reinstated - hence the downplaying of terrorism as a threat and the obsessive concern for the "rghts" of temporarily feared and hated terrorists. (Note to clinician: please differentiate between mere historical ignorance, e.g., a doctorate in history from an elite university, vs. neurotic or psychotic delusions necessary to sustain these beliefs. )
Anthroplastic delusion, e.g. The delusion that behavioral conditioning performed by the government or some other collective will cure all behavioral and social problems, rooted in denial of fixed human nature. Implicit in this delusion is the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and subject to behavioral manipulation leading to perfect control and predictability. Free will, personal conscience, and objective morality are denied, devalued or denigrated.
Anti-theistic rebellion: An emotional antagonism to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rooted in an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion (may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments that would question utopian, anthroplastic ideation). This behavior ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of all forms of religion. The rejection of religion leads to a deep longing for a substitute religion, or in extreme cases, a messiah. The more Western a religion is, the more it is despised. Thus, these patients may openly accept more primitive pantheistic, neo-pagan, or animist belief systems, such as Wicca or fraudulent "new age" philosophies, e.g., Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, etc.
Animist delusion: The belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to practical knowledge and experience of nature. Collective self-hatred is a feature in this area, paradoxically existing side by side with egomaniacal omniscience, e.g., ability to accurately predict climate 100 years into the future. Typical thinking includes the self-hating belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate." The animist delusion includes considerable cognitive dissonance, since the typical Progressive Personality is a believer in natural selection, which has resulted in untold suffering and cruelty, mitigated only by mankind's presence.
a. For example, the belief that an eagle egg or four-toed salamander is entitled to more legal protection than a human baby.
Environmental spasm: Chaotic, unreasonable, or incoherent episodes of manic activity on behalf of the environment or "mother nature." The delusional nature of this activity is evidenced by misanthropic attacks on works of man, and also by a manic focus on visible or totemic biological objects of little rational value. The patient is typically obsessed only with cute or cuddly creatures, often a displacement of the nurturing urge (often unfulfilled due to abortion).
Control obsession: A tendency to strive for excessive control over others through state intrusion. A contemptuous projection of unconscious envy which is subjectively experienced as "compassion." Through the magic of this unconscious mechanism, PPD patients typically want the state to appropriate your wealth while imagining themselves to be generous and "compassionate." Use of state coercion often substitutes for true acts of generosity; a low rate of charitable giving is often present.
Racist/feminist hypocrisy: Passionate advocacy of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, with aggressively proclaimed opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." Obsessive conformity of thought within a racially diverse population. For example, a PPD patient might favor seating a racist on the Supreme Court, so long as the person is of the "correct" race. Often the cognitive dissonance normally associated with such beliefs is rationalized by the delusion that the "oppressed" cannot themselves be racist.
Overemotional perception: Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual resulting benefits or harm; in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them. Obsession with "fairness" or "social justice" as opposed to what actually works.
Sexual dysfunction: Significant anxiety about sexual matters, manifested as:
a. Obsession with sexual and gender roles.
b. Passionate celebration of nontraditional sex roles and preferences.
c. The compulsion to define individuals by their "sexual preference" and to design social policy as if all individuals share the obsession.
d. An inordinate interest in preserving inappropriate, lewd, perverse, or antisocial forms of sexual expression.
e. Fascination with immature or deviant expressions of sexuality; reduction of human sexuality to animal sexuality.
f. The projected belief that the contradictory beliefs are a result of fear (e.g. "homophobia".
e. Obsession with contraception and abortion ("reproductive freedom").
Replacement of patriotism with matriotism: Unwillingness to defend country when attacked or threatened, allied with inability to name or recognize evil and General devaluation of the masculine virtues.
Cultural and moral relativism: The fervent belief that all cultures are beautiful except one's own, and that it is immoral to judge another's morality unless they are conservative.
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Davo17
Posts: 26,742
Registered: ‎03-24-2009

Re: Gun Control explained

we get it...you dont like christians. everything you think is through that prism.

thibgs were much more brutal earlier...or entire villages were simply killed. take a history class.
DSM-IV 301.95 Progressive Personality Disorder
A. A pervasive pattern of progressive political and inter-personal thought and action, rooted in discredited leftist (neo-Marxist) beliefs, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following (individual must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for the diagnosis of Progressive Personality Disorder, as many of the criteria are age-appropriate for adolescents). This disorder often coexists with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Utopian thinking, e.g. a delusional belief that there exist simple, linear, side effect-free solutions to all social problems.
Lack of historical knowledge and perspective, and repression of personal memories dissonant with this belief system. e.g., the national mood post 9-11, including that of PPD patients, is suppressed in order to avoid conflict with subsequent reversal of beliefs as the PPD delusions were reinstated - hence the downplaying of terrorism as a threat and the obsessive concern for the "rghts" of temporarily feared and hated terrorists. (Note to clinician: please differentiate between mere historical ignorance, e.g., a doctorate in history from an elite university, vs. neurotic or psychotic delusions necessary to sustain these beliefs. )
Anthroplastic delusion, e.g. The delusion that behavioral conditioning performed by the government or some other collective will cure all behavioral and social problems, rooted in denial of fixed human nature. Implicit in this delusion is the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and subject to behavioral manipulation leading to perfect control and predictability. Free will, personal conscience, and objective morality are denied, devalued or denigrated.
Anti-theistic rebellion: An emotional antagonism to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rooted in an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion (may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments that would question utopian, anthroplastic ideation). This behavior ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of all forms of religion. The rejection of religion leads to a deep longing for a substitute religion, or in extreme cases, a messiah. The more Western a religion is, the more it is despised. Thus, these patients may openly accept more primitive pantheistic, neo-pagan, or animist belief systems, such as Wicca or fraudulent "new age" philosophies, e.g., Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, etc.
Animist delusion: The belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to practical knowledge and experience of nature. Collective self-hatred is a feature in this area, paradoxically existing side by side with egomaniacal omniscience, e.g., ability to accurately predict climate 100 years into the future. Typical thinking includes the self-hating belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate." The animist delusion includes considerable cognitive dissonance, since the typical Progressive Personality is a believer in natural selection, which has resulted in untold suffering and cruelty, mitigated only by mankind's presence.
a. For example, the belief that an eagle egg or four-toed salamander is entitled to more legal protection than a human baby.
Environmental spasm: Chaotic, unreasonable, or incoherent episodes of manic activity on behalf of the environment or "mother nature." The delusional nature of this activity is evidenced by misanthropic attacks on works of man, and also by a manic focus on visible or totemic biological objects of little rational value. The patient is typically obsessed only with cute or cuddly creatures, often a displacement of the nurturing urge (often unfulfilled due to abortion).
Control obsession: A tendency to strive for excessive control over others through state intrusion. A contemptuous projection of unconscious envy which is subjectively experienced as "compassion." Through the magic of this unconscious mechanism, PPD patients typically want the state to appropriate your wealth while imagining themselves to be generous and "compassionate." Use of state coercion often substitutes for true acts of generosity; a low rate of charitable giving is often present.
Racist/feminist hypocrisy: Passionate advocacy of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, with aggressively proclaimed opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." Obsessive conformity of thought within a racially diverse population. For example, a PPD patient might favor seating a racist on the Supreme Court, so long as the person is of the "correct" race. Often the cognitive dissonance normally associated with such beliefs is rationalized by the delusion that the "oppressed" cannot themselves be racist.
Overemotional perception: Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual resulting benefits or harm; in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them. Obsession with "fairness" or "social justice" as opposed to what actually works.
Sexual dysfunction: Significant anxiety about sexual matters, manifested as:
a. Obsession with sexual and gender roles.
b. Passionate celebration of nontraditional sex roles and preferences.
c. The compulsion to define individuals by their "sexual preference" and to design social policy as if all individuals share the obsession.
d. An inordinate interest in preserving inappropriate, lewd, perverse, or antisocial forms of sexual expression.
e. Fascination with immature or deviant expressions of sexuality; reduction of human sexuality to animal sexuality.
f. The projected belief that the contradictory beliefs are a result of fear (e.g. "homophobia".
e. Obsession with contraception and abortion ("reproductive freedom").
Replacement of patriotism with matriotism: Unwillingness to defend country when attacked or threatened, allied with inability to name or recognize evil and General devaluation of the masculine virtues.
Cultural and moral relativism: The fervent belief that all cultures are beautiful except one's own, and that it is immoral to judge another's morality unless they are conservative.
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Bowe
Posts: 25,949
Registered: ‎03-30-2008

Re: Gun Control explained


Used2BMarkoh wrote:

yanktar wrote:

I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this.  Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.


It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision.  And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration.  But it's not law, it's something distinctly different.  The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not.  When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic.  Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

 


in the common law system, court decisions are law

and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system

WARNING: may contain traces of Cynicism and Sarcasm
Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
yanktar
Posts: 11,836
Registered: ‎08-12-2011

Re: Gun Control explained


Bowe wrote:

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

yanktar wrote:

I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this.  Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.


It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision.  And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration.  But it's not law, it's something distinctly different.  The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not.  When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic.  Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

 


in the common law system, court decisions are law

and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system


Look again. Legal Precedent is crucial to our legal system.

“ What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic.” -- Bill Clinton

"A FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Bowe
Posts: 25,949
Registered: ‎03-30-2008

Re: Gun Control explained


yanktar wrote:

Bowe wrote:

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

yanktar wrote:

I'm frustrated that you pretend that Marbury vs Madison is NOT the Law of the Land, when even school children know this.  Thankfully, every President and Congress, not to mention SCOTUSes all recognize it, as well as the vast, VAST majority of Americans.


It's not the law of the land, it was a court decision.  And that has become a convention in America, like I say, a sort of agreed-upon binding arbitration.  But it's not law, it's something distinctly different.  The reason this is important is because Congress consists of elected representatives, the court does not.  When you have unelected, untouchable people making de-facto law, you no longer have a republic.  Don't sacrifice your freedom for the ability to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

Here, from Wikipedia, if that will make any difference: However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

 


in the common law system, court decisions are law

and last time I looked, the US doesn't operate under a civil law system


Look again. Legal Precedent is crucial to our legal system.


I know, which is why I said that the US doesn't operate under the civil law system

WARNING: may contain traces of Cynicism and Sarcasm
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 18,143
Registered: ‎08-12-2006

Re: Gun Control explained

Probably one of the most important posts ever.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 18,143
Registered: ‎08-12-2006

Re: Gun Control explained

you are very close grasshopper.
Please use plain text.
Occasional Contributor
Fuxamatter
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎01-18-2013

Re: Gun Control explained

Because his job description calls for putting himself into situations that you would never willingly put yourself into.

Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
mauser
Posts: 13,984
Registered: ‎10-26-2007

Re: Gun Control explained

Trainset: if they wish to amend the constitution, then they should do so. I seriously doubt 3/4 of the states will go along with it.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
mauser
Posts: 13,984
Registered: ‎10-26-2007

Re: Gun Control explained

Trainset: that being said.....its a far cry from amending the constitution to a group of 465 men and women, or 9, determining the rights and liberties of a nation.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
mauser
Posts: 13,984
Registered: ‎10-26-2007

Re: Gun Control explained

Mossy: Can't help you there. I never watched George Carlin.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
mauser
Posts: 13,984
Registered: ‎10-26-2007

Re: Gun Control explained

Booker: The people in Somalia have the freedom of speech too.

Unfortunately, their government doesn't respect their rights and the people are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Hopefully that'll never happen here, but we've apparently learned little from Bush and his running roughshod over the Constitution in the names of keeping us "safe" from boogeymen.
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Posts: 18,143
Registered: ‎08-12-2006

Re: Gun Control explained


mauser wrote:
Booker: The people in Somalia have the freedom of speech too.

Unfortunately, their government doesn't respect their rights and the people are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Hopefully that'll never happen here, but we've apparently learned little from Bush and his running roughshod over the Constitution in the names of keeping us "safe" from boogeymen.

wow just found the quote tag.

looks like many in our society don't care for the Constitution and want a newly interpreted one.

Please use plain text.