lol, if they didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Memes are dreams.
lol, if they didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Memes are dreams.
Racism. If you disagree that just means you are a racist. Probably a Nazi too.
I can punch you in the face now, right? Obviously Nazi obviously deserves to be punched in the face.
Okay, but where else in the English language does the prefatory clause limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence?
Again, I don't care about North and am not defending him. He did shit that was fucked up. That has nothing to do with English in written form and the courts interpretation of said English. That seems to be the main disagreement we have. If I may be so bold, you appear to interpret the 2nd to only apply to militia while I and the courts disagree with that assessment because prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence. Further, the application of that "right" that is stated in the 2nd has been upheld for people over 45 and women which destroys your idea that it only applies to the militia as defined by law. I am not sure what standing you have.
No. I just don't like being mis-represented even if 1 on 1 in addition to that media (/. comments are apart of social media) tends towards lies of omission on both sides.
So, you are going to continue believing that the prefatory clause limits the operative clause? Where else in English does that happen?
Hm. Interesting. If that was truly the meaning you would expect it to say "the right of the militia" but its "the right of the people". A well regulated militia is necessary but its the right of the people. Do you do that kind of gymnastics on language to get any meaning you want out of any text?
Language disagrees with you and the courts disagree with you. I think it is safe to say that your opinion on the matter is not only uninformed but flat out wrong.
Generally, I would agree but even if it is just you and me it is very dishonest to effectively change what I say in a quote. If it didn't' change the meaning then I don't really care. Perhaps I should have worded that question different but again, it comes off as dishonest because it changes what I said.
Not a grammar nazi but selective quotes of omission is a problem these days in media.
Also, I find it pretty dishonest of you to not quote the grammar effectively changing what I said. If you going to quote someone don't be a dishonest prick and change the meaning of what was said by lies of omission. You are no better than CNN.
lol, I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45 but sure thing because I don't know if you have heard this but women and people over 45 still can buy guns. Is this that fake news I have been hearing about?
The NRA like all organizations changes over time back in the time when Reagan was a governor the NRA was about hunting rifles. Laddy frickin da. During that time the "modern" position of the NRA was held by the black communities that felt the police had not upheld law and order and ignored their neighborhoods.
s that even suspected terrorists should have guns
So, if you are suspected of a crime and a citizen: You can lose constitutionally protected rights? You like going in circles don't you?
Call me crazy but I don't think the mere accusation of a crime is enough to enact punishment that limits rights. I guess I am an old fashioned liberal.
so long as the FBI or whoever had not caught them terrorist suspects by any definition should be able to buy a gun
You mean so long as the government has not convicted you of a crime you cannot lose rights? Wow, color me surprised... -.-
Why do you want to take away peoples rights on an accusation? The "with due process of law" went over your thread, didn't it?
Interesting choice of words. Conned? Hm. I am not sure how having access to an equalizer is at my expense or how increasing my odds in any violent encounter is against my own self interest. Is that an alternative fact I keep hearing about?
Kind of hard to have rights when your dead. That is what I am getting at. Sure, there are some laws to protect the corpse unlike china and that falls under "due process of law".
You don't get to pick and choose over which bits of the Constitution to follow
Oh that's rich from the "only national guard" and age 45. Which parts am I ignoring?
Just as well it doesn't apply to your guns isn't it?
It does apply to "my" guns. In an over simplified way of saying it; the right of self defense means right to kill. Guns are a lethal tool. Nuance aside (over escalation, state law, etc), self defense is a reaction to someone taking actions against you. Just like a nation does not limit the responses it has to defend itself from attacks by law so to is the citizens responses to defend themselves not limited by the constitution. Yes, case by case basis and state law to make sure it wasn't excessive or w/e that is the nuance and each case should be examined to ensure it was indeed a lawful self defense act.
I find it interesting. That all enemies "foreign and domestic" that may attack a citizen, the reaction that citizen has to attacks on life and liberty are not limited by the constitution. You have an odd idea of "conned" if you think that not limiting a citizens ability to respond to actions against me is a bad thing.
Age 45: the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
How have I been tricked by North? Or people like him? How is defending the 2nd alluding to being tricked by him or others? I know it was some time ago and it might be difficult for you to read what I write. But if you look at my first response to you, it had nothing to do with North.
Felons: You can lose life, liberty or property with due process of law. Do you understand what that means? IOW, if you were charged with a serious crime (felony) and the state respected your legal rights (due process) and found you guilty (convicted): you can be put to death, your liberty deprived, and your property taken. I doubt you have the capacity or ability to recognize the nuance between the 8th amendment and capital punishment.
Maybe this is news to you but elections aren't decided by one issue. Sure, you as an individual may have that one issue that is important to you like your "undeniably racist Islamophobic platform" but for others that wasn't as important as other issues.
It isn't sophistry to say; others think differently than you and that there were other issues more important to them than what you think was important.
Really, why does that have to be the one singular issue that has to decide the election? Is it really "looking the other way" to think there were other issues more important? Nothing else was more important? Come on.
Not defending North but I am defending the right of arms and self defense.
I don't think you understand any of the subject matter or written language. You seem to regurgitate various talking points without understanding the actual issue. You think a prefatory clause is the same as the operative clause. That alone is enough to dismiss everything you said. When we are talking about law, a basic understanding of language is important but I guess that is too much for you.
You are delusional.
I can say it was at least a partial Muslim ban, specifically it targeted Muslims fleeing religious persecution.
It prioritized minorities being religiously persecuted. Before, it was random lottery. Just because the prioritization changed doesn't mean religious ban or even partial. 80% of all Muslims were still able to enter the country and then from these countries after reassessment. I think that is a pretty large leap to say "religious ban" because of that and the courts struggled with that reasoning as well. But because preliminary the plaintiffs didn't have much burden of proof. All they had were allegations of "racism"/"Muslim ban". It is a specious argument to make considering the document itself and considering there were only allegations.
the judges seemed far more dubious about the argument it wasn't targeted at Muslims
There was one judge that was for sure dubious but the other 2 seemed reluctant following the train of thought "Muslim ban"/racist.
comments on TV boasting that he'd had a hand in crafting it and had been asked to make a Muslim Ban that'd pass the legal tests.
But the question to ask is whether this was that order or would that be a different one. Again, there were allegations but because of the preliminary nature of the hearing the burden of proof was very limited. The document itself did not allude to such motivations and its enforcement would be applied only to what was contained in the order and not the allegations of motive behind the order.
You misunderstand the 2nd if you think it only applies to the National Guard. It doesn't. Here is an example, before the civil rights movement in the 60's the black community felt that police were not enforcing law and order. They decided that if the government would not enforce the laws they would. So they took up arms and marched on the legislature to get the police to enforce law in order in their communities. According to you, those people should have just accepted that the government would not help them in times of need and they should have no recourse to defend themselves from criminality. No.
Or how about the Battle of Athens where a black man was shot in the back in the polling station and the ballots stolen to be counted in secret. Some WW2 veterans stormed an armory and used those weapons to besiege the prison where the ballots were being secretly counted. Those vets stole the ballots back at gun point as private citizens while the National Guard sat back and watched. According to you, those citizens of Athens should have accepted the death of a fellow citizen exercising their right to vote and accepted a tyrant government because "national guard". No. You do not wait for the police or the national guard to defend yourself and your rights. Do not belittle such an important right because you don't like it. People have a right to self defense and a gun is an equalizer.
Felons lose rights. Your statements make zero since because they are built of a faulty premise.
Berate North all you want. But do not use a poor character or poor reasoning to justify removing rights for everyone.