Here you go

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Origin

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.

No, I choose to call you on your age because of how YOU respond to people, not because I am particularly bothered. If I were as childish and petty as you seem to think I am then I would have long since made your whole account and IP addresses disappear from this forum, but I do not operate like that.
And not that it is any of your business, but I am at work. My mortgage doesn’t pay itself, so I have never been without a job since age 16 – back when you were seven years old.

Originally Posted by Origin

I obviously have picked a nerve with you and I'm glad for it. I hope it irritates you to no end. I'm not sure why I would respond to intentional insults, you would think at 33 you would be smarter in the ways of making an ass of someone. But then again, the insulting of another shouldn't be practiced per se, so if you actually do at some other point try to restrain yourself, congratulations.

Wrong again, the nerve you’ve touched is the one that causes me and several other people to ask you to be more specific with these silly-ass claims that you make about what Obama is trying to take from us, and instead of answering ANYONE directly, you call names, call people morons and change the subject.

Originally Posted by Origin

Anyway, I label someone a liberal because they have the intrinsic qualities of one. No sense to call a goose a moose.

No, you label people because you have no real response to offer otherwise, lord knows you can’t be bothered to respond to people when they make a pointed request for you to substantiate what you claim as if it is truth.

Originally Posted by Origin

Again I ask, why would I not spread what is happening before our eyes? If you still think that Obama isn't a radical extremist who hates the freedom of liberty and the American people, then you sir, are a bigot.

You’re not spreading ANYTHING. You’re trotting out asinine and unfounded claims as undisputable truth, and when someone disputes it, you take it back to grade school instead of responding. If my enjoyment of watching EVERY LITTLE THING you say picked apart and you not effectively defend yourself makes me a bigot, then I will be that.

Originally Posted by BarrigaS14

so that would place you into that definition if you disregard the ethnic group part out.

Look through his other posts in this section, he fits in that one too

[Brian]

Hey man, Philip is going to KICK YOUR ASS

[Origin]

The TSA (privacy, grouping under the guise of terrorism, I'm not sure children under 8 or people over 70 are terrorists. Especially Americans (this tells me we have a paranoid government), Obamacare, As passed by the Congress:

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.

The DHS statement above is contradictory to this statement, saying it is illegal to stop a government that is turning totalitarianism (before it happens, which is the only way to stop it. See where that goes?), Scout drones being set over friendly skies, the regime wants tracking devices in all new cars starting somewhere around 2015 (there is a thread in loud noises somewhere, haven't found it yet), trying to rid God from schools (liberals in general, under the ridiculous guise it might offend someone without caring it offends those who believe). As for the 2nd amendment, Hillary has been trying to ratify the UN small arms treaty here in the states. There are more but I'm not encyclopedia.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Phlip

No, I choose to call you on your age because of how YOU respond to people, not because I am particularly bothered. If I were as childish and petty as you seem to think I am then I would have long since made your whole account and IP addresses disappear from this forum, but I do not operate like that.
And not that it is any of your business, but I am at work. My mortgage doesn’t pay itself, so I have never been without a job since age 16 – back when you were seven years old.

Wrong again, the nerve you’ve touched is the one that causes me and several other people to ask you to be more specific with these silly-ass claims that you make about what Obama is trying to take from us, and instead of answering ANYONE directly, you call names, call people morons and change the subject.

I suppose I beg for someone to think for themselves. I'm no "brainwasher". The only thing most of you are concerned with is putting me down (yes, that is childish). If you are at work, then do your work.

Then go ahead, ask me to defend one of my viewpoints and I will give you a straight answer.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

Still with the age game. Quit acting like a child, at 33 (birthday recently?) you should be working on a Friday. Inb4 I have no job in which yes, I am off.

So at 23 shouldn't you be working friday as well? Your posts are very hypocritical most of the time. I mean you had an entire thread talking down upon gay people based on a video/picture and have the nerve to call anyone a bigot.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

So at 23 shouldn't you be working friday as well? You're posts are very hypocritical most of the time.

if which yes, I am off.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

if which yes, I am off.

So since you are off work, what leads you to believe that someone else could not have the same day off?

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Origin

I suppose I beg for someone to think for themselves. I'm no "brainwasher". The only thing most of you are concerned with is putting me down (yes, that is childish).

See, you’re not asking people to think for themselves, you’re asking them to think like you, and when they rightfully ask you WHY they should believe what you do, then you jump on the defensive and call them names. In turn, no one is taking you seriously now, so you’re being insulted.
And you deserve it too.

Originally Posted by Origin

If you are at work, then do your work.

Wow, I was wholly unaware that you were sitting in the corner of this office that I am sitting in and that you had to do the work that I was not doing.
(hint: if you don’t know what I do, it is strongly suggested that you mind your own business as it relates to the efficiency with which I do my job)

Originally Posted by Origin

Then go ahead, ask me to defend one of my viewpoints and I will give you a straight answer.

Never mind ME asking you to defend your viewpoints, there are FOUR members who have been doing so over the course of four threads other than this one and you have yet to respond yet. In turn, the ridicule continues.

[Origin]

I am not full time, full time, will 99% of the time, be working on a Friday. The exception of course being someone who works 4 10's.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Phlip

See, you’re not asking people to think for themselves, you’re asking them to think like you, and when they rightfully ask you WHY they should believe what you do, then you jump on the defensive and call them names. In turn, no one is taking you seriously now, so you’re being insulted.
And you deserve it too.

Wow, I was wholly unaware that you were sitting in the corner of this office that I am sitting in and that you had to do the work that I was not doing.
(hint: if you don’t know what I do, it is strongly suggested that you mind your own business as it relates to the efficiency with which I do my job)

Never mind ME asking you to defend your viewpoints, there are FOUR members who have been doing so over the course of four threads other than this one and you have yet to respond yet. In turn, the ridicule continues.

Quit acting pretentious.

You now refuse to do what you were doing before in an effort to, yet again, insult and ridicule. So I am still the bad guy? I have viewpoints, but you, you are messed up.

If you are at work, you should be working. Not on zilvia. I don't think this needs to be discussed. If I had internet access at work, I would be doing what I am supposed to be doing, and be damn thankful I have one, not bitching at someone because they refuse to respond to insults. So, if you want to ask me something to defend (pick your choice, there are plenty) I will answer it. Otherwise, I'm not going through 30+ posts to answer them all. I don't have time for that.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Origin

I don't have time for that.

Of course you do, it's not like you have a full time job, you said it yourself

Originally Posted by Origin

I am not full time

I guess that is Obama's fault too, huh

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

Quit acting pretentious.

You now refuse to do what you were doing before in an effort to, yet again, insult and ridicule. So I am still the bad guy? I have viewpoints, but you, you are messed up.

If you are at work, you should be working. Not on zilvia. I don't think this needs to be discussed. If I had internet access at work, I would be doing what I am supposed to be doing, and be damn thankful I have one, not bitching at someone because they refuse to respond to insults. So, if you want to ask me something to defend (pick your choice, there are plenty) I will answer it. Otherwise, I'm not going through 30+ posts to answer them all. I don't have time for that.

What does any of this have to do with you not responding to half of the other reasonable questions that have been asked in here and other threads?

I'm with Phlip on this one, you keep trying to pass over any of the questions that deserve a logical answer, and only respond to the ones that you can try to come up with an insult to return. What does Phlips job have anything to do with you anyways, what if he worked from home? None of that even pertains to your random threads that you come up with. All we want to see is something to back up these bold claims that you keep posting about every few days.


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is still intact. You can still go buy a gun, believe me there is nothing I hate more than gun laws living in Kalifornia but as far as I have seen there is no new legislation to ban assault weapons again. The most ridiculous laws are coming out of Kalifornia when it comes to guns anyways.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Of course you do, it's not like you have a full time job, you said it yourself

I guess that is Obama's fault too, huh

Not having a full time job does not mean I do not fill my time.

If you want to really argue that for 12 million it isn't..

But for me, that is not his fault.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

What does any of this have to do with you not responding to half of the other reasonable questions that have been asked in here and other threads?

I'm with Phlip on this one, you keep trying to pass over any of the questions that deserve a logical answer, and only respond to the ones that you can try to come up with an insult to return. What does Phlips job have anything to do with you anyways, what if he worked from home? None of that even pertains to your random threads that you come up with. All we want to see is something to back up these bold claims that you keep posting about every few days.


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is still intact. You can still go buy a gun, believe me there is nothing I hate more than gun laws living in Kalifornia but as far as I have seen there is no new legislation to ban assault weapons again. The most ridiculous laws are coming out of Kalifornia when it comes to guns anyways.

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

People DO think, which is why they are asking you questions. Everyone is questioning you on your resources and it just seems like this is what YOU believe, not what you can prove. Usually making claims requires a logical source to pull information from, but half the stuff you've posted up is like trying to get real news from The Onion.

[Origin]

Are you claiming someone forged a document from the DHS?

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

Are you claiming someone forged a document from the DHS?

It's one thing to post up a link, and another for you to go all chicken little about everything you post. I read the link, but I didn't get the same thing out of it that you did. You seem to jump to major conclusions with even the slightest hint of something you disagree with.

A direct quote from your article: "(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure in response to their belief that the government deliberately is stripping Americans of their freedoms and is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime. These individuals consequently oppose many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations, (particularly those related to firearms ownership), and often belong to armed paramilitary groups. They often conduct paramilitary training designed to violently resist perceived government oppression or to violently overthrow the US Government. (Page 2 of 3, emphasis added)"

There is nothing wrong with you believing that the Government is stripping you of your rights, and in some ways I might agree. But the article is clearly talking about people who engage in acts of violence towards "federal, state, or local government officials or infrastructure". But unless you are using acts of violence to convey your point then you have nothing to worry about.

[fckillerbee]

jesus fucking idiot. Please off yourself....you are spreading a disease. Stupid people will follow stupid people.

[ineedone]

Origin, dude, really?? I mean really? I ask for this

Originally Posted by ineedone

Name a freedom that has slowly been taken away. Name one. And give more then some one word answer like GUNS! Seriously, try hard and find some facts to back it up. Facts... not a random blog post.

Here, how about this... If you make a valid point, I will jump to your side and give you some great material (I mean I already gave you Posner... but who knows if you can even read). But it has to be valid, and supported. No one liners here buddy.

And in return... I get this word vomit?? Really dude? This is just pathetic. Either way, I will separate your on liner claims... I will dispose of them (this time without telling you how stupidly childish you are - ps like how you started using that after I said it... imitation is always the best flattery). I hope I can get this all done during my potty break. Here we go!

Originally Posted by Origin

The TSA (privacy, grouping under the guise of terrorism, I'm not sure children under 8 or people over 70 are terrorists. Especially Americans (this tells me we have a paranoid government),

If you are so short sited to believe that children and old people cannot be terrorist then you are sadly mistaken. Here is an article from Oliver North, who I guess is someone you would love, detailing how Al Qaeda was using disabled children and women as suicide bombers. Women, Children and Mentally Disabled are New 'Martyrs' For Al Qaeda | Episode Guide | War Stories | Fox News Channel

It is a freaking pat down, stop getting all bitchy about it. You do not have a undivided right to fly in planes. Now if you want to bitch about it being a worthless policy or not efficient or effective then sure, I can meet you on that one. But to say that you are losing some sort of liberty? No. No. No.

I cannot believe I had to post a foxnews article... I feel... dirty?

Originally Posted by Origin

Obamacare, As passed by the Congress:

Um, No. It is constitutional. No matter what you think, that is how the court came out. I do not think corporations should have the same constitutional protections as humans do, but you know what? they do. I do not go around crying about it being unconstitutional. I say "that is bad policy" and "you know if they really cared they could pass an amendment" and "hey, since these corporations are now people, how can we sue them as people instead of corporations, does this mean there are new avenues of liability for corporate actions, etc." See how that all works? Instead of crying about what the SCOTUS does, make it work for you. The freaking supreme court, even the "liberal" justices said, hey, this is a tax. So you know what you do now you say OMG OBAMA RAISED TAXES!!!! RAWR GROVER NORQUIST!!!

Again, you can say the policy sucks all you want, but it is absolutely constitutional and does not take away any of your liberties.

Originally Posted by Origin

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.

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

But again, no one is losing any rights for any reason.

Originally Posted by Origin

The DHS statement above is contradictory to this statement, saying it is illegal to stop a government that is turning totalitarianism (before it happens, which is the only way to stop it. See where that goes?)

No. Here is the actual 5 slide, powerpoint - that is right... a whole freaking 5 slide "lexicon." DHS Extremism Lexicon FINAL


As you can see, it just explains all the different types of radical groups within the united states. This is nothing new, and honestly... really? This got you upset? Really? This is really basic stuff here... but I guess this means tyranny... I dunno, but yeah, I would read some of these things before posting them. I mean the first one is Anarchist... so I guess you RWNJ need to step up your game because those lefty loones are still beating you.

Originally Posted by Origin

Scout drones being set over friendly skies

Why is this an issue? absent them doing illegal searches, they are allowed to fly over, they are even allowed to watch stuff. I guess street cameras bug you out too? We live in a digital age where everything we do is captured in the public... It kind of comes with the territory. Blame technology and the fact that nothing in the constitution prohibits drones from flying around with a camera on.

PS. If you were worried about the story where they used drones to monitor cattle ranchers, that was a good thing. Unless you like cow shit in your drinking water then, yeah that was bad. I prefer water with no shit.

Originally Posted by Origin

the regime wants tracking devices in all new cars starting somewhere around 2015 (there is a thread in loud noises somewhere, haven't found it yet)

Well, that is not true at all. But sure, I will play. Look I know this will be tough, but take this link to Media Matter. Right-Wing Media Freak Out Over Nonexistent Obama Proposal To Impose Mileage Tax | Research | Media Matters for America

In fairness I did post a foxnews link. Just give it a whirl.

Originally Posted by Origin

trying to rid God from schools (liberals in general, under the ridiculous guise it might offend someone without caring it offends those who believe).

Well, liberals are not the only ones who do not think god should be in school. That first amendment does not like it either. Remember those pesky founders... well blame them. The way you determine whether the government can play with religion is called the "lemon" test. I know it is a pretty sucky test. But hey, it is what we got. Basics - secular purpose, primary effect can not advance or inhibit, and no excessive government entanglement.

Further, though it is true the the words "separation of church in state" are not printed in the constitution... it has been a solid constitutional principle since the founders. But hey, do not take my word for it, go to law school and learn about it.

Originally Posted by Origin

As for the 2nd amendment, Hillary has been trying to ratify the UN small arms treaty here in the states. There are more but I'm not encyclopedia.

Well, again, no. Here is a link to the facts http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...lary-clinton-/

And because I know that is way to long to read here is the spoiler - "We found no evidence of Obama or Clinton indicating they want the UN conference on an arms trade treaty to ban the use of firearms; the recent speech by an administration underling states the government will not back a treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

This claim runs so substantially counter to reality, it’s ridiculous. Pants on Fire!"


Ok, so that went a little longer then potty break.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

I'd rather people think, that's all I ask. I shouldn't have to spoon feed ideas. I post articles, do you read them? I never said it was infringed now, I am claiming it will be. I said multiple times in this thread, "This time next year.."

Well this time next year I will own a transformer!

See guys, fact, because it is this time NEXT year. Argument won.

[raz0rbladez909]

In for response on how I need to grow up!

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

And in return... I get this word vomit?? Really dude? This is just pathetic. Either way, I will separate your on liner claims... I will dispose of them (this time without telling you how stupidly childish you are - ps like how you started using that after I said it... imitation is always the best flattery). I hope I can get this all done during my potty break. Here we go!

This is the same thing I am proposedly doing, isn't it Phlip? Or is it not because he is on your "side".


If you are so short sited to believe that children and old people cannot be terrorist then you are sadly mistaken. Here is an article from Oliver North, who I guess is someone you would love, detailing how Al Qaeda was using disabled children and women as suicide bombers.

Again this is why I call people like this idiots. I clearly stated Americans. Americans. People going on vacations, with a fucking suburban family. I said AMERICANS. You stupid moron. Americans. Do you know what they are? I said Americans, do you get that yet?


It is a freaking pat down, stop getting all bitchy about it. You do not have a undivided right to fly in planes. Now if you want to bitch about it being a worthless policy or not efficient or effective then sure, I can meet you on that one. But to say that you are losing some sort of liberty? No. No. No.

No it's perfectly fine to watch your 6 year old daughter get her regions touched because she wants to fucking blow herself up you idiot. You have no children, that's a fact. And if it isn't, you were a horrible father. If you are a guy.



Um, No. It is constitutional. No matter what you think, that is how the court came out. I do not think corporations should have the same constitutional protections as humans do, but you know what? they do. I do not go around crying about it being unconstitutional. I say "that is bad policy" and "you know if they really cared they could pass an amendment" and "hey, since these corporations are now people, how can we sue them as people instead of corporations, does this mean there are new avenues of liability for corporate actions, etc." See how that all works? Instead of crying about what the SCOTUS does, make it work for you. The freaking supreme court, even the "liberal" justices said, hey, this is a tax. So you know what you do now you say OMG OBAMA RAISED TAXES!!!! RAWR GROVER NORQUIST!!!

Again, you can say the policy sucks all you want, but it is absolutely constitutional and does not take away any of your liberties.

It is NOT. Again, you know NOTHING. No where in the initial arguments did the Obama side say it was a tax. That bastard Kennedy LOOKED for a way to make it work. Do you watch Top Gear? Do you know how much they complain about the Liberals over there making taxes on taxes on taxes on taxes involving automotive ALONE. Through TAXES, they can funnel you into anything. Just like their right to own guns. It has been taken away by liberals, and it will be taken away here if morons like you don't wise up to what is coming. I never said anything was happening now. I am looking to the future. I can see the groundwork being laid down. It is reminded that it is a crime for people to revolt, so when they come to take your guns, no one will revolt. Even though by the constitution they can never be granted the power to do that. I don't know why you can't agree with this.

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

Who says? Do you say? You know all? A militia is citizens being rounded up for fighting purposes. It doesn't matter what Liberals try to turn it into, that's what the definition is. The national guard is national guard.


As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

But again, no one is losing any rights for any reason. (I never said right now)

I believe you can still get a full auto if it was before the ban. I will have you know, that there have been ZERO deaths reported by the ATF (the ATF for God's sake), of guns that have been owned in this way. So why is there a need to rid the people of them? The answer is there isn't. There just isn't. There are no deaths, so no harm. The only reason they would want them taken away is because they either A. can't stand that freedom we have, or B. (and the more logical one here) they don't want opposition when they start heating things up with their agenda. I wouldn't, mind you, take that last sentence as radical..



No. Here is the actual 5 slide, powerpoint - that is right... a whole freaking 5 slide "lexicon." DHS Extremism Lexicon FINAL


As you can see, it just explains all the different types of radical groups within the united states. This is nothing new, and honestly... really? This got you upset? Really? This is really basic stuff here... but I guess this means tyranny... I dunno, but yeah, I would read some of these things before posting them. I mean the first one is Anarchist... so I guess you RWNJ need to step up your game because those lefty loones are still beating you.



Why is this an issue? absent them doing illegal searches, they are allowed to fly over, they are even allowed to watch stuff. I guess street cameras bug you out too? We live in a digital age where everything we do is captured in the public... It kind of comes with the territory. Blame technology and the fact that nothing in the constitution prohibits drones from flying around with a camera on.

PS. If you were worried about the story where they used drones to monitor cattle ranchers, that was a good thing. Unless you like cow shit in your drinking water then, yeah that was bad. I prefer water with no shit.

It is not constitutional to spy on the American people. Period. Regardless how. It doesn't matter your opinion, but then again the constitution doesn't matter anymore. My God you are so brainwashed into this, I feel bad. They sound like a bad set of ranchers if they didn't know that was going on..


Well, that is not true at all. But sure, I will play. Look I know this will be tough, but take this link to Media Matter. Right-Wing Media Freak Out Over Nonexistent Obama Proposal To Impose Mileage Tax | Research | Media Matters for America

In fairness I did post a foxnews link. Just give it a whirl.



Well, liberals are not the only ones who do not think god should be in school. That first amendment does not like it either. Remember those pesky founders... well blame them. The way you determine whether the government can play with religion is called the "lemon" test. I know it is a pretty sucky test. But hey, it is what we got. Basics - secular purpose, primary effect can not advance or inhibit, and no excessive government entanglement.

Further, though it is true the the words "separation of church in state" are not printed in the constitution... it has been a solid constitutional principle since the founders. But hey, do not take my word for it, go to law school and learn about it.


Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).


Well, again, no. Here is a link to the facts PolitiFact Texas | Craig James says Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seek treaty to ban the use of U.S. firearms

And because I know that is way to long to read here is the spoiler - "We found no evidence of Obama or Clinton indicating they want the UN conference on an arms trade treaty to ban the use of firearms; the recent speech by an administration underling states the government will not back a treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Here's a counter (but I'm sure this is biased):
Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Elimination of the Second Amendment | Independent Sentinel



Ok, so that went a little longer then potty break.

I encourage you to make the difference between the two dialogues. Hope this is good enough for Phlip wanting me to answer. The tables have changed. I make good points, but I have driven you right to the other side. You won't listen if it smacks you in the face. Don't humor yourself.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

I encourage you to make the difference between the two dialogues. Hope this is good enough for Phlip wanting me to answer. The tables have changed. I make good points, but I have driven you right to the other side. You won't listen if it smacks you in the face. Don't humor yourself.

Wait... you made a point? Bold that for me please.

Oh, Americans... because no Americans can be terrorist? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1653578.html

Oops... that was not the point was it?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

It is NOT. Again, you know NOTHING. No where in the initial arguments did the Obama side say it was a tax. That bastard Kennedy LOOKED for a way to make it work. Do you watch Top Gear? Do you know how much they complain about the Liberals over there making taxes on taxes on taxes on taxes involving automotive ALONE. Through TAXES, they can funnel you into anything. Just like their right to own guns. It has been taken away by liberals, and it will be taken away here if morons like you don't wise up to what is coming. I never said anything was happening now. I am looking to the future. I can see the groundwork being laid down. It is reminded that it is a crime for people to revolt, so when they come to take your guns, no one will revolt. Even though by the constitution they can never be granted the power to do that. I don't know why you can't agree with this.

They argued that in the lower federal courts many times. Just not at the SCOTUS. However, that does not matter. Oral arguments and briefs to a court are to help persuade. If the SCOTUS wants they could decide the case on completely different issues that no side argued. It was Roberts, not Kennedy - and I am the one who knows nothing - and he did not look for a way to make it work. I doubt you read the opinion or ever will so just stop with being a constitutional scholar now. So UK Top Gear knows about US policy and taxes? That is funny, never took the UK Top Gear law class... damnit I knew I was missing something. I cannot agree with a wackadoo loon prophesying about the impending doom that is surely (not happening) happening. How is it so hard for you to understand that if the stuff is not happening, just because you think it will, does not mean other people think it is or will happen. You still have not cited ONE example backed by ONE fact.

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by Origin

Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).

One does not need religion to be a good person. Morals make you a good person. There are plenty of fucked up people in the world that act upon what their interpretation of whatever religious text tells them to do. Look how many wars have been fought over who's religion is right. Weren't the words of Christianity/Catholicism spread quite violently? Isn't there still a war going on between Palestine and Israel? What about the Thirty Years War?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

B. (and the more logical one here) they don't want opposition when they start heating things up with their agenda.

This is your logical reason for the government restricting access to high powered automatic, military weaponry? Not safety? Not shit like Waco? They have .50 cal sniper rifles at waco. That shit is real dangerous. I do not want some idiot cowboy picking up a highpowered assault because that shit looks cool, then going and killing himself or someone else by accident. Some toys only trained pros should get to play with. Big, awesome guns... are one of them. But I guess that makes me a liberal? Yeah, go figure.

Originally Posted by Origin

It is not constitutional to spy on the American people. Period. Regardless how. It doesn't matter your opinion, but then again the constitution doesn't matter anymore. My God you are so brainwashed into this, I feel bad. They sound like a bad set of ranchers if they didn't know that was going on..

Uh, says who? Find me where the constitution does not allow spying. Please, find it for me. See, to me the constitution does matter, that is why I am asking you where. What is unconstitutional is if they use those drones to do illegal searches. Just spying though, that is the same as a cop posted outside your front damn door just sitting there waiting for you to do something. Unethical? maybe, Unconstitutional? NO.

Originally Posted by Origin

Yeah this generation is doing great without discipline (which is what religion is). A religious woman is not a whore. A non-religious woman could be (Could, not is). A religious woman can not. This is set in stone, in the sense that the religious woman is not a fake religious standby, and the non-religious (read, atheist, more times than not), has no bother either way beyond what she was brought up to believe. No discipline, no subtlety. Religion breeds discipline. Unless you can find Sumerian text describing morals and ethics without religion, it is safe to say that all ethics and morals that most older people hold dear can are ancestors to the first religions (I suppose you can say the grouping of guidelines to good life at the commandment of a god).

I do not even know where to begin with this. I guess women are whores who do not go to church? Well, I went to a Catholic and Christian high-school, huge whores. Lots of them. It was fun. Not sure how your love life is, but I am guessing even Handgelina and Palmela do not appreciate the way you talk about their sinful ways.

And your small arms treaty link is stupid. It is a partisan blog. I posted a fact check on those exact claims. But I guess politifact is what? Biased? Sure. Next time use the quote button right.

ANNND one more thing. The words of the constitution should mean something, so when it says "WELL REGULATED militia" that to means something more then you and your 3 buddies. I am pretty sure most would agree.

[theicecreamdan]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Ok, so the world has changed a bit. The "militia" is what we call the national guard. Not you and your 3 best buddies humping around the woods with an ar15 and some fatigues. Is it hella fun? YES, but that is not what a "well regulated militia" is.

As to the language of the 2nd, "to keep and bear arms." That language is so freaking ambiguous that even the SCOTUS cannot agree as to what it means. I would point you to DC v. Heller, but do not worry about it. If you are of the Scalia elk - you flip the words so that the only thing that matters is "arms" and by arms he means any firearm. Now if you are of the Stevens elk, you say hmm, arms during the time of the framers meant weapons, not military weapons, so rifles and revolvers, not automatic rifles and UZIs (aka military grade weaponry). Look that is a very basic ad lib, but for the purposes of this... it is enough.

The second amendment is pretty clear.

"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."

Heller also clearly distinguishes that the right is to "the people," not the National Guard.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

The second amendment is pretty clear.

"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."

Heller also clearly distinguishes that the right is to "the people," not the National Guard.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would argue that no amendment is really "clear" but that may also be because of how I interpret things. In my view, because the framers did not save the notes of the debates as to how they wrote the constitution, it is really a crap shoot as to what the "true meaning" is. This is why I find this "originalist" crap some justices label themselves as as a complete farce. They are just as much as a "activist" or "liberal" judge as those that believe in the living and breathing constitution. I use the word activist and liberal not in their political sense, but in their approach to stare decisis and judicial construction. With that said... here is what I got out of DC v. Heller... These are my class notes, my Con Law prof was pretty awesome. ME of Law Review at Cornell and worked at a top litigation firm before teaching. Leans liberal, Favorite Justice Souter and is not a fan of Ginsburg. So, she is pretty fair to say the least.

Here were my notes

• Really looking at how does the court decide what a constitutional provision is
• 2nd amendment – question before the court, can DC prevent the keeping of loaded handguns in the home, how do justices answer this question?
• Sources used by various justices
• Scalia uses text, dictionaries 18th century dictionaries - sees that arms talks about offensive/defensive use
• Stevens uses different dictionary - sees that arms means military arms, weapons would have meant it all, but use of arms is term of art that is contracted with the word weapons
• what else do we do when interpreting text?
• Parsing the text - is this two rights to keep arms and to bear arms, or is it one right to keep and bear arms?
• Prof thinks stevens argument better on the construction (to, and to means 2 rights, where here it is one right)
• the right of the people is used in the first and the fourth
• that the first amendment of the right of the people, talks about multiple people not a singular
• 4th talks about more individual
• Stevens says this is inconclusive, that there is no answer, that this is a parsing that does not help (of Scalia opinion)
• look at same or similar language within the text
• look at clauses and figure out how they are related to one another
• rule of judicial construction – every word counts, its best to start at beginning and go from there
• Scalia deals with the main clause, then says the second clause is really not that important
• Scalia majority skips to the second clause, and the ask what the first clause adds for us
• both agree that reason for 2nd amendment was for congress not to be able to destroy militia (differ on what militia means and is)
• textualist - will read provisions that are related to them
• Original-ism - what other people at the time said, and what the framers and people involved said
• intent of the framers – pure textualist do not get involved with this - what people were doing at the time, and legislation and case law within a decade or so of a constitutional amendment (absent here)

On substance, I go with Stevens. He really gives it to Scalia and pretty much calls him out saying, hey buddy you are just making this shit up. He even makes fun of his grammar skills. It is probably one of the more entertaining back and forth opinion/dissent. Scalia is witty, but really he was way more entertaining when he was first on the court... now it is just sad political hackery, and frankly, he can do so much better.

[mantas]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

"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."

Pretty fucking clear to me that people have right to keep and bear arms. Im not going to get into any other political bs and the bs going on in this thread but theicecreamdan is right here. Its very straight forward and i dont think there is any other way to interpret that unless you are dumbass or you are a wanna be lawyer like ineedone.

Ineedone - stfu until you pass the BAR, Because studying law does not make you a lawyer.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by mantas

Pretty fucking clear to me that people have right to keep and bear arms. Im not going to get into any other political bs and the bs going on in this thread but theicecreamdan is right here. Its very straight forward and i dont think there is any other way to interpret that unless you are dumbass or you are a wanna be lawyer like ineedone.

Ineedone - stfu until you pass the BAR, Because studying law does not make you a lawyer.

Hey, are you still trying to figure out what makes me dumb about Immigration and ICE? Dude, it is taking a long time.


I got my JD, not sure how that makes me a wanna be?

I do not think anyone has an issue with the right to actually have firearms
But what does the amendment allow the government to do? Why did they write it as "to keep and bear" and not "to keep and TO bear?" Why did they say "arms" and not "weapons?" - - How can you answer any of those questions definitively without knowing what the framers had in their heads at the time they wrote it? Does the ghost of Adams speak to you? If you look at state constitutions during the debates, they varied in the way they had their own 2nd amendment type rights. Some said weapons, others had arms, etc. Not only that, but the meanings of the words have changed, you look up the word arms, not only are there numbers different dictionaries, but they all have more then one definition that relates to some sort of weapon. Now do you use a dictionary of today? or of the 18th century? Which one? Do you see how just the word "arms" can be almost impossible to define?

Add those to your research list. Homework is due Monday. (Its the weekend, I mean I only half study so I do not expect you to full study).