.....and those conservatives on here preaching "stop and frisk" and disregarding the 4th Amendment are....???????? That's a question that has bugged me for weeks now. Conservatives who want to protect one Amendment, but trample another, yet call out others for doing the SAME THING as "liberals".....
So people are "libs" for wanting gun control.....
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
What do you call us conservatives who would like to keep all of the amendments preserved? I mean other than logical and commonsensical, as I would agree with liberals of the same mindset.
Exactly. There are those of us that would seek to maintain all of the bill of rights as written. That we are a nation of adults and should be treated as such.
You have extremes of both parties that want no regulation to one amendment but regulation of others.
I'm an individual that believes the constitution needs to be fluid with the times if the public finds it necessary. That is why it is written with the ability to amend if necessary.
For as much as I get called a liberal on this board, that's where I fall as well, on the side of the constitution (or the Constellation, both are beautiful ships). But then personal biases influence interpretations of what certain amendments actually mean as they pertain to the issue du jour.
Yes, but you all have ignored the question. A FEW particular posters on here constantly call others "libs" when speaking of the 2nd Amendment....yet these same posters want to trample on the 4th Amendment.......are they not "libs" as well then?
I am fine with amending the constitution if there are moral and ethical issues with an amendment. I don't believe any of those currently exist.
As Whitetail mentions, it's the interpretation of the Amendments. They vary by individual and certainly by SCOTUS. I think the 10th Amendment is pretty self explanatory but we have clearly moved far beyond the Founder's intent due to various interpretations by SCOTUS.
I don't call them libs. I call them idiots as to that particular discussion.
"well-regulated militia"........that's pretty much open to interpretation.
"illegal search and seizures".......I don't think that is.
"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"
Commas have a purpose in a sentence. Notice where they are in the above. And to borrow a line from Doc from his abortion arguments, this is well established law.
And you left out....
"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."
You do know what a comma means don't you? I believe the Supreme Court has decided they know what a comma means.
Notice how he didn't respond to DvlDogs post pointing that out? He instead saw an opportunity to straw man your post.
Yeah, I noticed that. I also noticed that he's never commented on the 10th amendment.
I'm only putting this here because your post is the only one with the entire wording in it ... and because you're less likely to get all pissy and antagonistic as a response.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
It's a pretty good break down of the wording of the 2nd amendment and what it meant in the context of the time in which it was written.
Just like how you never have commented about the Colorado shooting. Although you claim to have made a post, you did not. You made mention of a California cop. Wonder why to that?
I've read that before as well as the Federalist papers and a lot of other information that was cited surrounding the 2nd Amendment. You have people that just want some action, they hear buzzwords and think that is the answer without fully thinking in through or even understanding what they are being spoonfed. They act on emotion and that action completely invalidates the beauty that come with living in this country. I guess an argument could be made that they also personify their right of freedom of expression and thought regardless of how idiotic those ideas are.I'm only putting this here because your post is the only one with the entire wording in it ... and because you're less likely to get all pissy and antagonistic as a response.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
It's a pretty good break down of the wording of the 2nd amendment and what it meant in the context of the time in which it was written.
This is my thread, I call you libs. I have never supported stop and frisk. So stop you're whining and join the conversation about "sensible" gun control legislation. That doesn't include yearly psych evals for millions of Americans.
STFU......because all you neo-cons want are more police, more military, more CONTROL of our civil liberties.
I don't have to tell you....you all spew off on here enough on what you believe. Fact is conservatives hate "big government", but want bigger government to control society......
That is the truth. But they won't admit it and just keep denying. Talking at of both sides of their mouths is one of the things they do best.
You have no idea what I believe, obviously, but that hasn't stopped you from running your mouth up to now. Please tell me what I want and don't want from government, to the letter, since you know so well, or STFU.
First, I'm not a neo-con. Second, I don't want more police, more military, more control, and lastly, you're losing it dude. Go take a xanax.
Link to one location where I said I wanted more police, more civil liberties taken away, or stop and frisk. Hint: You won't find it. Shut up already.
Huh? I din't call you out or reply to anything you said. Hell, I even agree that you are not a neo-con.
So you are one of the status-quo crowds? Nothing to see here.....move along......right? No problems......
Nope, but I'm not a knee-jerk "let's yearly psych eval 1/3 of the US population" person either.