SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - SCOTUS rules 5/4

Page 2 of 4

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138625)

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

You need to learn to reply to posts and frame an argument without calling people that post something you disagree with ignorant. I didn't even disagree with you, all I did was point out the Bill of Rights takes hits from both sides of the political spectrum. This is the second time you have done this to me, in what, a week?

There's nothing like subsituting thinking with unwavering belief, bull**** rhetoric, and insults, eh?

PD

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. Their votes to give terrorists on foreign soil the same rights as U.S. citizens...meaning more rights than our own military personnel. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

Those are some very true words.

-S

mrbeast

06-26-08 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

Quote:

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

Quote:

Five years ago Switzerland was shocked when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with his army rifle, before turning the gun on himself.
In the first half of 2006 there were at least six incidents where a man shot his wife or partner before turning the gun on himself. In a highly publicised case the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother and seriously injuring her mother with his army pistol before killing himself.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/...=1166366897000

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

Quote:

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

Quote:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/...=1166366897000

Big whoop! 300. So what? These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

-S

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

Skybird

06-26-08 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

And TV comment from Swiss TV on German-Austrian-Swiss 3Sat program just broadcasted this evening said that the study was saying that per year 30.000 people get killed by firearms.

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

Only when their are liberals on it. The liberals seem to vote away the Consitution, the conservatives seem to uphold it. Right now, it is not biased (unless you count biased towards the law of the land - namely the Constitution) until the liberals outweigh the conservatives.

It works like this -

Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution).

Liberals vote for what they personally think the people should have. That is why the words of liberal activists are in this thread.

See the problem?

-S

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

Lets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S

PS. And that was a highly liberal activists view, which has led to our gay marriage fiascos now. :p

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

Lets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S

Of course not, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution.

See the problem?

PD

JetSnake

06-26-08 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetSnake

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.

I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.

mrbeast

06-26-08 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Big whoop! 300.

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

Quote:

So what?

Nice attitude you have to people being killed;)

Quote:

These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:

Quote:

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

Quote:

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/W...87704000&ty=st

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Of course, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. Just wondering.

PD

Lets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution? Case closed.

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetSnake

I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.

I know where to get you a T-72. Will that work? Comes complete with 125 mm cannon.

-S

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Big whoop! 300.

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

Quote:

So what?

Nice attitude you have to people being killed;)

Quote:

These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:

Quote:

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

Quote:

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/W...87704000&ty=st

But you're missing the point once again - The UK, when it had guns or not, had a murder rate that was a fraction of the rest of the world. This is normal for you guys. And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point! Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Talking with children again.

-S

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Of course, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. Just wondering.

PD

Lets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution?

According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.

Lets analyze it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 06:37 PM

I am not arguing that it is in the Constitution!

I am simply pointing out that a Conservative SCOTUS does not always deliver decisions that uphold the Constitution.

PD

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:37 PM

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

So SCOTUS in my opinion should have dropped this case and left it to the state of TX.

-S

PeriscopeDepth

06-26-08 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PD

SUBMAN1

06-26-08 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What exactly is not truth?

-S

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Page 2 of 4

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page