A question for conservatives

[targus]

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

Constitutional scholar that you are - certainly you must be familiar with the term "right to bear arms".

 

[Crabtownboy]

Constitutional scholar that you are - certainly you must be familiar with the term "right to bear arms".

So you believe the Constitution is a living document subject to change with the times and technology. After all, I doubt any of the founding fathers were aware of the possibility of an A bomb. :laugh:

 

[targus]

So you believe the Constitution is a living document subject to change with the times and technology. After all, I doubt any of the founding fathers were aware of the possibility of an A bomb. :laugh:

Then you must think that warrantless wiretaps are ok - since the founding fathers were equally unaware of the possibility of the telephone.

Now wipe off that drool and go back up into the attic. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then you must think that warrantless wiretaps are ok - since the founding fathers were equally unaware of the possibility of the telephone.

Now wipe off that drool and go back up into the attic. :smilewinkgrin:

Obviously you did not read my post and have not really read earliers posts. I have been against warrantless wiretaps science they were proposed. I have argued they and other features of the Patriot Act are IMHO unconstitutional and have taken citizen rights away ... and yet you call me liberal. ROFL

Do you believe the Constitution is a living document?

 

[Andy T.]

If security was left up to the airlines you can bet I would try very hard to find one that used way more reasonable measures than the TSA is doing currently.

Even if security is privatized, it's not going to be different security for Delta and different security for Southwest. It will still be all one security, and if that security involves body scans and pat downs, I guess you will be forced to not fly, in order to maintain consistency with your professed principles. Of course, you've violated your professed principles so many times by your wild fluctuations in political support, it won't be a big leap for you to do so on this issue. To sum up, you really have no credibility to be pontificating on this.

 

[targus]

Obviously you did not read my post and have not really read earliers posts. I have been against warrantless wiretaps science they were proposed. I have argued they and other features of the Patriot Act are IMHO unconstitutional and have taken citizen rights away ... and yet you call me liberal. ROFL

Work on those critical thinking skills.

Were the founding fathers aware of the possibility of the telephone?

It appears then by objecting to warrantless wiretaps that you think that the Constitution is a living document.

Go back and read the last four or five posts to this thread to see if you can follow the discussion.

We can take it up again from there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Work on those critical thinking skills.

Were the founding fathers aware of the possibility of the telephone?

Just work on your logic skill. The telephone has nothing to do with bearing arms.

It appears then by objecting to warrantless wiretaps that you think that the Constitution is a living document.

How so? Do you mean the Constitution says "wireless wiretaps are legal?" Which clause says this?

I'll think of you are I save carbon this weekend as I walk around Prague. Park you car and save carbon also.

Getting late, I'm out of here for the weekend.

 

[targus]

:laugh:

Just work on your logic skill. The telephone has nothing to do with bearing arms..

My use of telephone/warrantless wiretaps arguement is in response to your A Bomb/right to bear arms objection.

The founding fathers were no aware of either.

Having a dicussion with you is like riding a merry-go-round.

It goes around and around but gets nowhere. :laugh:

How so? Do you mean the Constitution says "wireless wiretaps are legal?" Which clause says this?..

This is exactly what I am talking about !!!!

You understand nothing about what is being discussed !!! :laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you willing to have the U.S. constitution violated in the name of safety?

Nope. In fact I think there should be less security at airports. I also believe we shouldn't have public flights coming out of Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afganistan, etc... I think we should profile and forget about political correctness.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

So you guys do think it should be legal for your next-door neighber to keep an atomic bomb in his basement?

From a 2nd amendment standpoint it is not unconstitutional. Certainly the founding fathers were thinking of military weapons when they wrote the right to bear arms. With that in mind a rocket launcher, grenades, tanks, fighter jets, and even A bombs would have been covered, but we lost that right realistically with the civil war and legislatively with the National Firearms Act in 1934. If the federal government has the right to regulate and control then it realistically has the right to ban. I would prefer that the government get out of that all together and allow us to keep any kinds of weapons we want, but that is not likely to happen.

You could regulate an A bomb from a public safety standpoint. Because of the radiation risk I think it would be completely constitutional for the federal government to say you can only have an A bomb at your house is you can demonstrate that you can store and house it safely in a way that poses no threat to anyone outside of your home.

Remember, the 2nd amendment was not put into the constitution for hunters or sportsman. It was put in there so that the people of our nation could in the future, if necessary, overthrow the government and install a new one, something our founders accomplished for themselves. Any weapon that would aide in the overthrow of our government should be legal.

 

[saturneptune]

No - but it is where I learned tolerance for certain types of people.

If not for that experience I would no doubt have less patience for you. :smilewinkgrin:

The less tolerance for me a pro-establishment person has for me, the better I like it. Now you can go back and start a thread on the difference between Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid.

 

[targus]

The less tolerance for me a pro-establishment person has for me, the better I like it. Now you can go back and start a thread on the difference between Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid.

Yes - I know - you have a very ultra-enlightened understanding of the world.

You are so special. :love2:

 

[Alcott]

Can you life an A bomb in your arms? :laugh:

Not without more work in the gym. But they are arms, are they not? Or was the Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty completely misnamed?

 

[rbell]

I'll think of you are I save carbon this weekend as I walk around Prague. Park you car and save carbon also.

Considering how much hot air you've posted on this thread, the "carbon savings" have been nullified.

 

[Alcott]

So you guys do think it should be legal for your next-door neighber to keep an atomic bomb in his basement

No, I do not.

Is it in the name of safety-- or what?-- that you think the constitution should be violated in this?

 

[KenH]

It is not a violation of the constitution. You can use weapons to defend yourself against an attacker but that does not give you the right to use said weapon against an innocent person. One cannot use a nuclear weapon without harming innocent people and property belonging to someone other than an attacker.

 

[SBCPreacher]

Just a suggestion...

Can you two (Targus and Crabby) start your own thread where you can hurl insults at each other and question each others intentions. It's getting tiresome to wade through it to get to the OP and the replies.

Either that or please try to stick to the OP.

 

[Alcott]

It is not a violation of the constitution. You can use weapons to defend yourself against an attacker but that does not give you the right to use said weapon against an innocent person. One cannot use a nuclear weapon without harming innocent people and property belonging to someone other than an attacker.

Yeah? What does the constitution say about harming innocent people by utilizing your rights it does confirm? Nothing.

Yes or No: Are nuclear weapons arms?
Yes or No: Does the constitution affirm the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[KenH]

Yeah?

Yes, that is correct.

I do not consider nuclear weapons to fall under the purview of the second amendment. If you think they do, that is a defensible position to take. I understand where you are coming from on that.

 

[poncho]

Yes - I know - you have a very ultra-enlightened understanding of the world.

You are so special. :love2:

NS is special. Not because of any enlightened understanding though.

NS is special because NS focuses in on the real issues while everybody else around seems lost in the sauce. To those folks who are lost in the sauce (false left vs right paradigm) NS only appears to have an enlightened understanding. :smilewinkgrin:

Here, have at it enlighten yourself.

The American culture of today is being assaulted along the same lines that Caesar and Hitler used long ago, and Americans are falling prey to such tactics in growing numbers with every passing hour. We are truly a divided people, who agree or disagree along party, ethnic, racial and religious lines. Much like the priests of centuries past, no decision can be made without first consulting our appointed political or social �leaders�. We take sides with differing factions within our country, arguing about single issues that are presented to us and whose sole purpose is to divide us into isolated groups. Instead of meaningful debate about the future of our nation, we receive only distractions. We thirst for truth, meaning, and freedom, but instead find ourselves wandering through the desert of distraction and confusion. We seek leaders, but only receive figureheads. We have ceased being Americans. We are conservatives or liberals. We are environmentalists or corporate interests, Catholics or Protestants, hawks or doves, black or white. The people of America are divided among many lines, ultimately under the confines of a system of right and left. Much like the German people of the 1930s, we are isolated from clear perspective. Much like the beleaguered Celts, we are so distracted by civil war of right and left, we aren�t aware of our country vanishing before our eyes. The truth is, there is no right or left. There is only right and wrong.

Full Article

Now you posess an enlightened understanding of the world.

Use it wisely citizen.