REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Welcome To The Wild West???

POSTED BY: DEEPGIRL187
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3633
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, June 27, 2008 1:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

No worries, Kwicko. Posting on the RWE is always a toss of the dice in terms of arguments and such.


Ain't that the truth...

Quote:

And I meant to say other side of the state, but somehow it seems much cooler that way.



Very much cooler. Keep it the way it is; don't change a thing. Make it your sig. Or I might have to steal - er, I mean, BORROW - it. :)

M



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 27, 2008 9:11 PM

KHYRON


http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/27/news_network_stock_footage_arc_1_74
08.php


------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:23 PM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
True. Let us get back to topic.


I have a question: Why did the "Wild West" fail?

I mean, there was plenty of land, and very little laws. Everyone was armed.

How did it turn from that almost utopian society to this?



I think that's a very interesting question. I believe you can point to the following list as a good start:
Christianity
Mankind's upward progression towards modernization
Law and Order advocacy
Federal and State beaurocratic regulations & manipulations

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 27, 2008 11:52 PM

CITIZEN


I apologise, frem, I missed this piece of idiocy before, so thought I'd mention it now:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!

No, but thank you for lying about what I said, it's always nice to see the person who bitches about people twisting his words the most, being the person most willing to do just that to others. I have researched my opinion, and I am more than willing to provide direct quotes of what I'm talking about if asked, what I won't do is supply a long list of links and ask other people to find the evidence for me, because I'm too lazy to do my own research, as you did. You asked us to go find the evidence to back up your opinion, I've done the research of my opinion, I'm just unwilling to do your research for you as well.
Quote:

You want specifics ?
Easy enough.

The "Militia" of the United States is us, all of us, any of us, both willing and able to pick up and use a firearm at all - this was universally understood and acknowledged by both Federalist and AntiFederalists to a point where it was generally assumed.

Fair enough (though only one of those was a signatory on the Declaration of Independence, weren't they?) But it doesn't remove the idea of 'well regulated' from the militia, nor the idea that it was intended to be much more official than handing out guns and screaming "Go git 'em boys!". You can't deny the well regulated part, which in your earlier post is indicated to mean that the militia is under the control of the state government, and the state government is responsible for appointing the officers of that Militia. So yeah, I still wonder if the "the militia is everyone" is more of an idealistic assumption that everyone will join the State Militia in time of crisis. The Well Regulated part, and the clarification in other statements suggests that the Militia is a far more formal entity than a everyone owning a gun.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:



I have to apologise first off, because I didn't read the rest of your post, but the assertion of this image is flat out wrong. In 1900 violent gun crime was higher in the UK than it is today. The only UK Police who carry Sub-Machine Guns are the armed police, such as SO19, roughly analogous to the American SWAT force. The only time you see them on the streets is outside secure military and government sites, where armed military officers were once used. It's more assuming things were better and are going out of control now that you'll see in the Daily Mail, and rather light on the truth.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 3:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.



But the whole militia argument is rendered moot in the first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision.
Quote:

Held:
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.



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 3:49 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The only suggestion that militia means the entire population (To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands) could just as easily mean he expected the whole state populace to rise up and join the state militia, if the Federal Army was to ever attack, than the Militia IS the entire populace.



But the whole militia argument is rendered moot in the first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision.
Quote:

Held:
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.



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


"Keep the Shiny side up"

So? They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done. I was talking about what the founding fathers may have meant based on the language they used, not how the supreme court reads it after ignoring half of what was written. When trying to work out it's meaning for myself, I'm not willing to ignore the bits I don't like, or do like, or whatever. So the supreme court is, bully for them.

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling? Assuming "to bear arms" meant "private gun ownership" (it didn't), the phrasing is clear in the amendment, the right to bear is how the well regulated militia is to be brought about. Anyone who can read English properly should be able to tell that the second fragment is meant to support the first, not be taken in void of it. So the supreme court can't read, not my problem.

Perhaps a crash course in English Language comprehension would do them good? Since they've decided two clauses in the same sentence are 'unconnected', it seems they really do need one.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:56 AM

PIRATECAT


The language Oh my.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
So? They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done.



If you'll read the decision, you'll note that they didn't ignore half the sentence, they explain in detail their reasoning.

Quote:

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling?


Probably because the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to rule on questions of law, and you don't.

Sorry, Cit, but your opinion is not law. The Supreme Court's, on the other hand, is.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

They may have ignored the half the sentence, but it doesn't mean they should have done. I was talking about what the founding fathers may have meant based on the language they used, not how the supreme court reads it after ignoring half of what was written. When trying to work out it's meaning for myself, I'm not willing to ignore the bits I don't like, or do like, or whatever. So the supreme court is, bully for them.

Besides, if the supreme court can ignore half the amendment, why can't I ignore half their ruling? Assuming "to bear arms" meant "private gun ownership" (it didn't), the phrasing is clear in the amendment...



Cit, I respectfully disagree.

As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's not "ignoring" half the Amendment, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.

Quote:


See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275
(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves
and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20
(1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear
arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art.
I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.
Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a
right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,
Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear
arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23
(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4
id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them-
selves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh,
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. &
Politics 191 (2006).



They cite these instances to indicate the intent of the phrasing of the Amendment and the common usages of the words and their meanings DURING THE GENERATION in which the Amendment was written. In all cases, the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms is tantamount, whether it be for the defense and security of the State, or for the defense and security of THE INDIVIDUAL.

The INDIVIDUAL maintains the right to keep and bear arms, even if by your narrow view that right is only to fulfill their "membership" of a militia. There's no mention of any central armory that will hand out weapons if such a militia is called forth. It is intended that when you come into such militia service, if and when such is required, you bring your own arms with you. In order to do that, you must first HAVE those arms, and be able to "keep and bear" them.

So what's your definition of "militia", anyway? It's not a standing army; the Framers were abundantly clear about that. It's the *opposite* of a standing army; it's the entire citizenry, ready to rise up and repel any threat against the nation, whether foreign or domestic! And that extends to threats against any individual as well, as a nation of threatened individuals is a threatened nation.

Wiki defines a militia thusly:

Quote:

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.



Wiki goes on to say...

Quote:


In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.



That certainly seems to indicate that such militiamen are fully expected to have their own weapons, and as such must be allowed to keep and bear them in anticipation of such time as they may be needed or called up for service - even if such service is only the defense of their own life and property.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it this way:

Quote:



mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.




So, by any rational definition of the word, I *AM* part of the militia, since I am eligible by law and am able to be called.

One thing seems pretty clear - in order to be in ANY kind of militia, first you have to have the ability as an individual to keep and bear arms.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:54 AM

CITIZEN


Sorry Geezer, but your opinion isn't better than mine, no matter how much you wish it so. I also don't care one iota about what the US supreme court says or doesn't say. To me, my opinion on the US constitution is as effective to me as the ruling of some illiterate judges in another country, eh .

It's also highly irrelevant to what I was saying. They interpret the constitution, but their interpretation is no stronger than mine when discussing what the Founding Fathers meant, only in how it's interpreted by people and law now.

Besides, to say that it is completely unlinked with the idea of militia, they have to ignore the first part of the amendment. I don't care how much they toady around the issue, how much they 'reason', how many times they say "we didn't ignore it, really we didn't". The sentence flows like this: "To promote Y, X must be protected". To turn around and say X has nothing to do with Y just shows they don't have a clue about how the English language works. Y and X are intractable, they appear in the same sentence, and are irrevocably linked by the clear intent of the sentence.

Though, if they're truly not, I should be able to get away with this:
The judges of the Supreme court, what illiterate morons.

By their standards, I didn't just call them illiterate morons, because those two halves of sentence aren't linked.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Sorry, Cit, but your opinion is not law. The Supreme Court's, on the other hand, is.



Bingo. I may not agree with their decisions, but their decisions are final, barring a Constitutional Amendment to override them.

So, Cit, since I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount in 2000, then I don't have to officially recognize that Bush is the President of the United States? Can I now stop paying my taxes and abiding by the laws of the United States, because I don't agree that he's the President?

You should really read the entire ruling, and the opinions offered by both sides on the case. There's some enlightening stuff in there. For instance, it challenges directly the ever-increasing practice of requiring a license for a weapon, but then refusing to issue such licenses, or issuing them capriciously and on a whim. It challenges such "may-issue" statutes and compels them to change to "must-issue" stances. If you apply and if you meet the requirements, the authorities can not REFUSE to issue you such a license.

It doesn't, however, challenge the idea of having licensing requirements. It's NOT the "Wild West", where anyone and everyone can have a gun. It's a reaffirmation that law-abiding citizens needn't be criminalized en masse for doing what their Constitution guarantees them the right to do.

Let me ask you this, Cit: Would you support licensing laws and requirements, or membership in a well-regulated group, in order to exercise your right to peaceably assemble? Or do you believe that THAT right is universal, but other Constitutional rights somewhat less so?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, I respectfully disagree.

As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's not "ignoring" half the Amendment, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.

That's great, but we're not talking about about the state constitutions, so they're completely irrelevant.

The Second Amendment is formed of a sentence of two linked parts, the Supreme Court said one of those parts isn't linked to the other, so they obviously don't understand how the English language works.
Quote:

So, by any rational definition of the word, I *AM* part of the militia, since I am eligible by law and am able to be called.

One thing seems pretty clear - in order to be in ANY kind of militia, first you have to have the ability as an individual to keep and bear arms.

So how do you explain the formal entity described earlier, under the control and direction of the State government, and officers appointed by the state government. If all the Militia amounts too is everyone, essentially just screaming "go git 'em boys!", where does the well regulated entity described come into it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Bingo. I may not agree with their decisions, but their decisions are final, barring a Constitutional Amendment to override them.

So, Cit, since I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount in 2000, then I don't have to officially recognize that Bush is the President of the United States? Can I now stop paying my taxes and abiding by the laws of the United States, because I don't agree that he's the President?

I was talking about the original intent. Whether the original intent is enshrined in law is irrelevant, what the supreme court has to say is irrelevant, in fact, to the point I was trying to make. At the end of the day, my opinion of what the Founding Fathers meant is just as good as the Supreme Courts, it's just my opinion doesn't make current and lawful state backed modern interpretation. But it being the modern interpretation doesn't change what the original interpretation was.

I wasn't talking or discussing law in any sense, I've not even discussed whether I think people should be prevented from owning private weaponry. I was merely talking about how I think the Second Amendment was meant, how it's interpreted now in law is really irrelevant to what I was saying, as is telling me my opinion isn't law.
Quote:

It doesn't, however, challenge the idea of having licensing requirements. It's NOT the "Wild West", where anyone and everyone can have a gun. It's a reaffirmation that law-abiding citizens needn't be criminalized en masse for doing what their Constitution guarantees them the right to do.
Again, completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
Quote:

Let me ask you this, Cit: Would you support licensing laws and requirements, or membership in a well-regulated group, in order to exercise your right to peaceably assemble? Or do you believe that THAT right is universal, but other Constitutional rights somewhat less so?
No, but then peaceable assembly isn't a dangerous weapon that requires a person to be trained and responsible to use it without injuring or killing someone. Also, in the constitution it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is integral to the up keep of the well regulated Militia, there's no such clause in relation to freedom of assembly. A question would be, why do you think you can drop inconvenient parts of the Constitution, such as the clause "Well regulated Militia"? Is the phrase "Well Regulated Militia" not as important as the phrase "Right to keep and bear arms"?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry Geezer, but your opinion isn't better than mine, no matter how much you wish it so. I also don't care one iota about what the US supreme court says or doesn't say.



That may be true, but the Supreme Court's opinion has the power of law behind it, and your's has nothing.

Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Funny...

Does it not seem that, simply by making such rulings the Supreme Court has the effective power to subvert or distort the Constitution however they please, without regard to checks and balances, and with no appropriate means of remedy even should they do so blatantly and with malice aforethought ?

And if yer thinkin "Yeah, that don't seem right", you are not alone, this issue was addressed by Brutus in Antifederalist Papers 11,12 and 15.

The most relevant portion, from #15, here.

I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word: To prove this I will shew — That there is no power above them that can controul their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.

1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. — In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.

2d. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a dimunition of their salaries, for any error in judgement or want of capacity.

It is expressly declared by the constitution, — "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.

3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgement of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the legislature. The judges are supreme — and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them.

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

So if the Supreme Court suddenly decided, say.. the word "arms" in the Second Amendment meant pencils, it would stand and be unalterable by ANY MEANS, period - there's no effective check on their power and never was, which is the reason politicians wanna stack that bench with folk who are amenable to their whims, and just why it's so damn dangerous to allow that to happen.

It always struck me as just a bit ludicrous, not to mention unsafe to libery, to have a bunch of such codgers "decide the meaning" of a document written in a fashion intended that anyone who could read at all could comprehend it entire.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

At the end of the day, my opinion of what the Founding Fathers meant is just as good as the Supreme Courts.



Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.

Quote:

I was merely talking about how I think the Second Amendment was meant...


And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.

Quote:

Also, in the constitution it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is integral to the up keep of the well regulated Militia...


Quote:

2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” That definition comports
with founding-era sources. The Feder-
alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)
(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”);
Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable
Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he
militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able
to bear arms”).

Opinion of the Court
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump-
tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and
the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden-
tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia.
Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the
power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a
Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by
Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the
power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15;
and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not
to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if
the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize
“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid.,
cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition
of the militia as all able-bodied men. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of
a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-
regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in the use of firearms.



Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).

If it's your contention that owning firearms be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms, I'm right there with ya.

Quote:



b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or com-
munity.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference
to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia
is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that
the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to
individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state”
and close variations seem to have been terms of art in
18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free coun-
try’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security
of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see,
e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15,
1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen
& G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other in-
stances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accom-
panied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to
the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any
state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no
state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in
Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did
not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan-
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.



Quote:



3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-
bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitu-
tion. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters
from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The
Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).
John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s
“command of the militia” could be used to create a “select
militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a sepa-
rate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the
people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary
History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M.
Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Feder-
alists responded that because Congress was given no
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep
and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the peo-
ple. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed.,
2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of
Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of
America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the
Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in
id., at 556. It was understood across the political spec-
trum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen
militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive
military force if the constitutional order broke down.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amend-
ment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the mili-
tia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting.
But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codi-
fied in a written Constitution.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second
Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel prin-
cipl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our
English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275,
281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even
achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification
of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment
right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as
a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petitition-
ers 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—
it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a
safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary
authority to organize the militia, which must include the
authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17
That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only
whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to
exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s
Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev.
477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the
Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in
an organization from which Congress has plenary author-
ity to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the
sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s
militia that was the concern of the founding generation.



YOU say "they ignored half the Amendment" - but clearly, they didn't ignore it; they argued it quite vociferously. And they went back to the legal writings of the time to get a better picture of what the Amendment MEANS, so they can better interpret what the Founders meant when they wrote it. That, after all, is the job of the Supreme Court - to get to the bottom of things and find out what the Framers really meant. One thing I have learned: This wasn't decided lightly. It was INVOLVED - the opinions alone run for pages and pages, with hundreds of citations of legal precedent and legal opinions and writings going back over 400 years.

So far, you've come up with no better argument against it than, "But that's not the way I feel, so that settles it. Anything else is irrelevant."

Argue. Make your point. Cite the legal writings. Hell, cite ANY writings of the Founders and those of their generation to illuminate your point. Convince me.





Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:37 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Edit to add: Sorry, your opinion does have your massive ego and supercilious worldview behind it. Or maybe that is nothing, after all.

In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.



And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And Frem, regarding your post:

Now THAT is a question that's good for debate!




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!

Much as you, I will respond to people in the way they address me.

Anyway:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.

No, their opinion has more consequences, but it doesn't necessarily make it better sourced or supported. Unless you fall easily for appeals to authority, it doesn't mean their opinion is 'better', perhaps more 'important', but not 'better'.
Quote:

And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.
No, but as I said I was willing to give back up for my interpretation if someone asked. No one did.
Quote:

Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).
I'll fall back on something Frem provided earlier, which indicates that what they meant by 'Militia' was a regulated body, with officers and under the command of the state government. Do you want me to re-post it? The words in Frems post indicate that the Militia the writer intended wasn't just a bunch of guys with guns, it was the formal entity I was talking about, doesn't it?
Quote:

YOU say "they ignored half the Amendment" - but clearly, they didn't ignore it; they argued it quite vociferously.
They say it wasn't linked, when clearly it was. CLEARLY, since it's in the same sentence, and the right to keep and bear arms was integral to the up keep of the militia.
Quote:

So far, you've come up with no better argument against it than, "But that's not the way I feel, so that settles it. Anything else is irrelevant."
No, what I said was that the supreme court and it's decision was irrelevant to what I was saying, I'm sorry if you didn't like your appeal to authority being challenged. You seem to have pigeon-holed me and what I'm saying in a convenient box, which is obviously why you think so much of this is relevant to what I'm saying, but it really isn't. My only point was that in the 1700's the phrases "well regulated militia" and "to bear arms" had meanings different to what everyone has been saying, or to how they're now interpreted. You're now demanding I back up assertions I never made, and throwing a contemporary interpretation at me. Yeah, I think that's irrelevant, I'm not talking about the law or interpretation now, I'm talking then. I'm making no statement about how things should be now, nor how it should be codified in law now.

So I have two cases to make, one the meaning of the term well regulated militia, and the other is the meaning of the phrase "to bear arms".

To bear arms is easy, going off the congress records (I can't seem to get direct links to work, so I'll have to beg indulgence to run a search on the site until I can find a better solution - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/):

Excerpt from Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4 May 16, 1776 - August 15, 1776
Joseph Hewes to James Iredell

Quote:

Our whole army are retreated to the Isle a Noix a little on this side St. Johns, 1500 of them have the Small Pox, out of three Regiments not more than fifty able to bear Arms, we hope to keep possession of the Lakes.
Using the term "bear arms" to indicate only fifty men from three regiments are fit for military service.

Excerpt from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1804-1807
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1806.

Quote:

Whereas the commanders of British armed vessels have impressed many American seamen, and compelled them to bear arms on board said vessels, and assist in fighting their battles with nations in amity and peace with the United States; and also brought into British ports, for adjudication, many merchant vessels, sailing under the flag, and owned by citizens of the said United States, where some have been a long time unjustly detained, and others condemned, contrary to justice and the law of nations: For remedy whereof,
Again, showing the use of the phrase 'bear arms' to mean the impressment of American soldiers in to British military service.

Excerpt from the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1789.

Quote:

"Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
People who don't wish to bear arms, shouldn't be pressed into military service. Clearly using military service and the phrase "bear arms" as interchangeable.

The usage of well regulated militia in the above I feel is ambiguous, but if militia is a given as meaning 'all able bodied men capable of service', why do they mention it again? It's like saying "the people who can serve, composed of the people".

However, that the term militia can be used to mean a citizen army, is one I don't need to make. It's been made for me countless times in this thread, see your own posts. I feel doing so again would be superfluous. I concede that militia can mean every civil member of the populace capable of military service also (though I feel it's a more contemporaneous meaning), but I don't see how it may meaning that, makes yours a stronger case. Taking the two terms intent, a militia that is all the able bodied population would seem to be a rather non-formal entity, in which case I don't see how it being well regulated makes much sense. It's clear from what has been posted through out this thread that they meant all able bodied members, or expected the militia to be formed such, but they also saw it as a formal entity. A citizen army, with officers and under the direction of the State government. A formal militia under the charge of officers is not the same thing as everyone who has a gun. The fact that the term "to keep and bear arms", means to own weapons and serve in the military, makes the operation of a militia and the ownership of weapons intractably linked.

Was that enough in respect to "bear arms"? I'm not sure what you want from me regarding militia, to be honest.
Quote:

If it's your contention that owning firearms be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms, I'm right there with ya.
I've made no contention one way or the other. But since you seem to want to know what I think as it pertains to today:

I think that the Founding Fathers probably intended that each state would operate a militia, a non-standing army that nonetheless is trained in military tactics and manoeuvres. I think that for a State to not operate a Militia, as many don't, is just as unconstitutional as a hand gun ban in DC is. I think the implication is that people who wish to own weapons, should be compulsorily trained in their use. So yeah, I think "owning firearms [should] be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:30 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Indeed, that it is, Mike...

One OTHER point that most folk never seem to comprehend is that there was the "Standing Army" present in our current society, the very thing the Founders most feared as the primary danger to Liberty is NOT in fact, the Armed Forces of the United States, although that case can certainly be made...

It's another "Standing Army" that you would recognize as....
The Police.

From AntiFederalist #29.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .

See, back then there really wasn't so much an organized full-time law enforcement beyond the occasional Sheriff who would deputise members of the community at need - and there were good reasons for that, imagine such a Sheriff trying to convince the neighbors of the local priest to kick in his door for a no-knock raid at 3am based on info obtained from a vagrant caught stealing who's only hoping to catch a break by fingering someone at random and hoping the raid comes up with something ?

In the context of the argument, the Police as a whole, and all those assholes of the BATFE, DEA, and suchlike ARE the very "Standing Army" the Founders were convinced would be the end of us, because it is by THEIR power that the whims of our runaway Government is thrust upon us by force of arms rather than the consent of the governed.

And consider the argument previously posted that the general population should completely outgun any "Standing Army" as a bulwark against tyranny in light of the legal blockade of bullshit hoops one has to jump through to possess a weapon at all, and the eagerness with which the Police confiscate them - contrasted by the Police having assault rifles, APC's and grenade launchers.

And now their damn checkpoint charlie routine for bullshit fishing expeditions under the guise of excuse of the week, seatbelts, safety checks, what have you, but mostly just bullshit to give them an excuse to piss on the Fourth Amendment and lord over us like some kind of social upper class - not to mention the fact that they behave just like any other street gang once you strip the excuses and bullshit off.

I submit to you that THEY are the "Standing Army" that we're supposed to be armed better than, and here we are on the other end, at the very fucking pass AntiFederalist #29 describes.

For more information you might wanna read this abstract, presented by -
Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., M.C.J
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

To which my answer is not just no, but HELL no.

I used to be less vociferous about that, but watching them gleefully flock to New Orleans from as far away as Washington State to forcibly disarm people of the means to protect themselves not only against rioters and looters, but also against THEM, and in many cases forcibly evict folk from their own homes in lieu of any actual danger once they were disarmed, that did it for me.

It's those goons in blue the Founders were afraid of, not the ones in camo.

And most folk have never for a minute even pondered this, believe it.

-Frem


It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.



But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...

Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!



Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.


Besides, most of what he's doing is either quoting or paraphrasing Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion.
"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:35 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.

Neither did I. I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

In that case though, why do you continue to post here? Your opinion doesn't matter, why waste our time by voicing it? Why not just post the link to the supreme court's website with every reply? Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?

As for the supreme court, they can come over here and try to force their rulings on me any time they like, to see how much their opinion matters to me .
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.

Funny, coming from the guy who never gets off his high horse, and never says anything that isn't bratty and schoolboy-ish. ahh, Geezer, the hypocritical troll, will you ever change?

But anyway, thank you for admitting that you act like a troll



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:26 PM

PIRATECAT


Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed. 1st amendment doesn't apply to insulting people. Which you seem to attack my mother who is dead everytime you disagree. I've been waiting to slam you. You showed your insecurity again with the mother attacks. So appologize because I will stay on you. Stop trying to be smart cause your not. Learn something thats not what someone told you.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.


Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

Quote:

Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?

...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.

Sad little king of a sad little hill.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed.



Nice try. Care to guess again? "Your" wrong on all counts.

Quote:

I've been waiting to slam you. So appologize because I will stay on you.


And I'm still waiting for you to try. You want an apology because you attacked me personally? That's something that's just never going to happen. You're going to stay on me, huh? Wow. I'm shaking.

Quote:

Stop trying to be smart cause your not.


I'd give you a "D-minus" on that one.

Quote:

Learn something thats not what someone told you.


How about you learn English first?




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:29 PM

MSB


Posted as MSB again, Yeah, I'm a tool.
____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:36 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


It's cool Cit, I was using it from a post over at the 76th site. I did think it to be a correct statement to point out that many more officers (constables?) were being trained to effectively deploy small arms such as the MP5. I am actually glad that they are. We have too many people in the world trying to make the world a worse place than it already is. I only hope for the sake of the great people of the UK they will not have to rely on an armed constabulary to keep the peace. It is a travesty for the children of the world to not feel safe enough to walk down the street without armed protection. I can do nothing but commend the UK for making an incredible effort to keep that hope alive.

So ends my short visit to RWED. Good hearin' from y'all.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being an artist means not having to avert one's eyes.
-Akira Kurosawa

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:31 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.

They've obviously not been studying English or History though. But hey, throwing a tempertantrum because I'm not swayed by you fallacious appeal to authority? Guess I was right about the moron part.
Quote:

...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.

Sad little king of a sad little hill.

Well, it's you that said your opinion was worthless (you also said mine was), so the supercilious there is actually yours, buttercup . Ah, and the trollish part. Hows that discussion of a topic, any topic going for you geezer? It's not, now there's a surprise...

Sad little troll, under a sad little bridge.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But hey, throwing a tempertantrum...


You mean like:

"In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit."

Or

"Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps"


Quote:

Well, it's you that said your opinion was worthless (you also said mine was)...


Wrong and wrong.

"But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's." So no opinion from me on if my opinion matters, just an assertion that the Supreme Court's does.

I never said your opinion is worthless either, just implied that it's worth less than the Supreme Court's, absent any proof of expertise in law on your part. I then suggested a practical test of the application of your opinion versus theirs.

This lack of ability to correctly parse a couple of simple sentences doesn't do much to support your claim as someone who's able to correctly parse constitutional law.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:14 AM

CITIZEN


Ah, is signym not giving you enough trolling material at the moment? It's sweet you thought of me. You just can't help but prove me right that you're a troll can you. You can't come up with an argument of you're own, so you start attacking me with personal insults, then get all indignant when they're thrown back. Well, hypocrisy and childishness, now there's the Geezer we all know and ignore.

I get it geezer, you think because the 'authorities' have ruled, the topic is no longer open for discussion, unless it's to say how right the boss man is. That's fine for you, but we're not all of an authoritarian mindset, and if continued discussion after your authorities have ruled upsets you as it so evidently does, no one is making you stay here. You've obviously got nothing useful to add, you've posted you're link to the Supreme Court, and unless you just want to start flame wars and act like a troll, you might as well slime away under the rock you came from, because adults are talking and you're getting in the way. You don't want to start flame wars and just act like a troll, do you Geezer?

Remember, don't feed the GeezerTroll.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:18 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Ugh.

I haven't visited you lot in a bit, because I've been fairly irritated by the debate tactics here. The dishonesty of them.

I don't agree with Citizen's view on guns, but I try not to use flawed arguments to cut him down.

If the Supreme Court had ruled against individual gun ownership, I suspect we would all be railing against the decision of those learned men of law.

Instead, they ruled in favor of it, and now we are telling Citizen it is foolish of him to second-guess that supreme body of judges.

Second-Guessing authority is about the most American of pasttimes, and Citizen is welcome to do it, as are we all. The mere act almost makes him an honorary Yank. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.


Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.


Geezer, there are many areas where your opinion and mine intersect, this, unfortunately, is not one of them. Studying something for an entire career does not make one great, it makes one experienced. This is meaningless if one is a government tool, or just a plain schmuck. Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?
You're so out of touch with reality on this one, man.

Reality-checking Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:36 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Second-Guessing authority is about the most American of passtimes, and Citizen is welcome to do it, as are we all. The mere act almost makes him an honorary Yank. ;-)


Hear hear, Tony!!!

Yankedisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?



No. But they're probably more effective at properly running a mob than you and I are. That's how they got to be the bosses.

Simalarly, Supreme Court Justices have worked their way up through the Judicial Branch of the government by being effective in their rulings; usually through administrations led by both parties. This gives them pretty good cred, especially considering that they have to be approved by a Congress that, in recent years, has been pretty evenly split between the parties.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:54 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
you think because the 'authorities' have ruled, the topic is no longer open for discussion,



No. You can discuss it all you want. I just pointed out that your discussion, and your opinion, are moot, since the Supreme Court's decision is law, and your opinion is just... opinion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 3:39 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Mob bosses study criminality all their careers- should they be placed on a pedestal for their abilities?



No. But they're probably more effective at properly running a mob than you and I are. That's how they got to be the bosses.


And that would make their opinion on something more credible....how?

As a car mechanic could fix you vehicle more competently than maybe you could, but still look down upon you for owning what they considered to be a 'piece of crap', so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are. Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better. Can you tell me that Supreme Court Justices are all like that? Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?

Hmmphisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:30 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
... so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are. Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better. Can you tell me that Supreme Court Justices are all like that? Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?


And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:36 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Again, while I agree with the Supremem Courts decision...we are assuming that they have legality.

As far as I remember, the Supreme Court was not mentioned in the Constitution.

It has something to do with a there being a governing body that has "authority" over states rights. And the Founding Fathers not wanting that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 4:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?

As it happens, I agree with their decision. It just don't sit right with me when folks elevate regular humans to an elite status based on experience almost anyone could get if the opportunity presented itself.

Regular Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 5:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
And that would make their opinion on something more credible....how?



It would make their opinion on how to run a mob more credible, since they had actually, successfully run a mob. Maybe their opinion on how to run a day-care center would be less credible, but that's not what they're chosen to do.

Quote:

...so too are judges merely human beings, subject to all the vagaries of the human existence, and no better at looking at the big picture than you or I are.

But they're not required to look at the big picture. Their focus is very limited, to the Constitutionality of laws and rulings which come before them. Fortunately, they have studied their field of expertise for years, and have had further years of experience in applying it.

Quote:

Wisdom does not come FROM experience or knowledge, it is a quality that comes from the continual striving to make one's self better.

Maybe so, but would you want to be operated on by a wise brain surgeon who had never obtained any experience in or knowledge of brain surgery?

Quote:

Or is it possible that they think they are as brilliant as you would make it seem from your comments here?


I just figure that, due to their education and experience, they have a better chance of correctly interpreting Constitutional questions than the rest of us. This is based on the general observation that anyone who has training and experience in a particular skill, and who has risen through their efforts to the highest position in that particular skill, probably knows more about it than someone who hasn't.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 5:16 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

I just figure that, due to their education and experience, they have a better chance of correctly interpreting Constitutional questions than the rest of us. This is based on the general observation that anyone who has training and experience in a particular skill, and who has risen through their efforts to the highest position in that particular skill, probably knows more about it than someone who hasn't.


Okay then, just don't go makin' them sound like their poo don't smell is all.
Politics can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Judge Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 6:30 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, while I agree with the Supremem Courts decision...we are assuming that they have legality.

As far as I remember, the Supreme Court was not mentioned in the Constitution.

It has something to do with a there being a governing body that has "authority" over states rights. And the Founding Fathers not wanting that.



Time to brush up on the Constitution (and really, it would be a good thing for ALL OF US to do at least once every year or so...)

Here's the part about the Supreme Court:

Quote:



From the Constitution of the United States of America:


Article 3.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.






Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 6:31 AM

CITIZEN


The supreme court is also more likely to be bribed by the NRA. But that's not an argument I'd make, because that sort of Ad Hominem nonsense is the De Jure of other posters around here .

I don't even have a problem with them ruling against the DC ban (that sound? it's another ad Hominem crumbling), I have a problem with them jumping backwards through giant flaming hoops of illogic in order to remove the blatant military service term of "bear arms" and "well regulated Militia" from the whole thing. I don't have a problem with them up holding the "keep arms" part, I have a problem with them ruling that the Amendment actually says:
"The right of the people to keep Arms, shall not be infringed."



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 6:38 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I have a problem with them ruling that the Amendment actually says:
"The right of the people to keep Arms, shall not be infringed."


You got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?

Harryisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:01 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


And if they upheld the gun ban in D.C. would you be so quick to point out their perceived failings? Or would their judgement and expertise be sitting more comfortably with you then?



Bingo - there ya go. I wasn't happy when the Supremes stopped the 2000 election recount and settled the election, but while I might not agree with their decision, I realize I'm powerless to change it.

Some of their decisions I agree with, some I don't. If they had settled this one the other way, I'd probably be stashing guns right now. :)

As for the whole "wild west" and drunks, psychos, and felons running around with guns now that the ban has been struck down... I just don't see it. The ban was never going to stop those kinds of people from getting guns, because they don't really care about one more law standing in their way. What it DID do was disarm people who had broken no laws whatsoever, who only wanted the right to protect themselves in the most violent city in America, and one of the most violent in the world.

There are already plenty of laws on the books to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Stop trying to throw up a bunch of new laws, and start effectively enforcing the ones we've already got! Same goes with crap like the Patriot Act and wiretapping bills; they're wholly superfluous IF YOU WOULD JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!! Stiffen the penalties for gun crimes (and I mean crimes actually committed while armed, not BS charges trumped up because you found out the guy who was speeding also owns a gun that wasn't within 10 miles of him at the time of the incident), make gun safety classes mandatory, stick with the background checks, and start working on closing the gunshow loopholes. (For those who don't know what that means, it means that I can go to a gun show, plunk down my cash, and walk away with a semi-auto AK47 or something similar, with a thousand rounds of ammo, for $500-$750, and no one will even ask my name or look at my ID. Cash-n-carry all the way. I've done it, and even I think it's a bit nuts.)

Also, START teaching more gun safety in schools, in public service announcements, in public programs and the like. Instead of demonizing guns, teach people about them. Which scares you more? A trained gun enthusiast with 15 guns, or an untrained kid with ONE gun and no idea what he's doing? I can always tell whether someone has had any training when they pick up one of my guns and start waving it around, pointing it at anything and everything, never checking to see whether it's loaded or not, and not really caring. THOSE are the people who are dangerous around guns, because those are the people who get other people killed because they were just playing around and didn't know any better.

[rant over]

By the way, we're told that 30,000 people were killed in gun crimes last year, and about that many every year, and that's the reason we should ban guns outright. But did you know that 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year in the US? That's ten thousand MORE people than are killed by guns. When do we outlaw the automobile? Surely no one truly NEEDS a car any more - we have buses, planes, boats, trains, cabs - there's ALWAYS some way to get around that doesn't require you to own your own vehicle - but you wouldn't want to give that up, would you? And that doesn't even take into account the environmental damage that cars do!

I'm just sayin', is all...




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I think that the Founding Fathers probably intended that each state would operate a militia, a non-standing army that nonetheless is trained in military tactics and manoeuvres. I think that for a State to not operate a Militia, as many don't, is just as unconstitutional as a hand gun ban in DC is. I think the implication is that people who wish to own weapons, should be compulsorily trained in their use. So yeah, I think "owning firearms [should] be concurrent with signing up for a civilian militia and being trained and disciplined in the use of those firearms".



Cit, I think we may have finally found some common ground on this issue!




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:12 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When do we outlaw the automobile? Surely no one truly NEEDS a car any more - we have buses, planes, boats, trains, cabs - there's ALWAYS some way to get around that doesn't require you to own your own vehicle - but you wouldn't want to give that up, would you? And that doesn't even take into account the environmental damage that cars do!


You're just a mouthpiece for the greenie-weenies. Get a horse, you petulant pie hole.
I fart methane in your general direction.

But seriously, are the majority of peeps killed with guns killed with unregistered weapons?

Curious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Who is Q-Anon?
Mon, December 6, 2021 07:54 - 157 posts
India Corona Police are running around with Big Sticks Trashing and Smashing the Heck outta Hindu Asia Desi people trying to stop the spread of Covid Virus
Mon, December 6, 2021 07:52 - 4 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Mon, December 6, 2021 07:44 - 6009 posts
California becomes a Pot Smoking State. Hollyweed state Will legalize growing Weed Cannabis, smoking recreational marijuana
Mon, December 6, 2021 06:51 - 27 posts
Where’s the 302?
Mon, December 6, 2021 06:44 - 3 posts
About Cancel Culture... Silencing Voices... Destroying the Past...
Mon, December 6, 2021 06:37 - 5 posts
A Horde of Chicago teens SWARM bus driver, beating, kicking, & STOMPING him
Mon, December 6, 2021 05:58 - 1 posts
Lives Ruined by Joe Biden* and the Democrats
Mon, December 6, 2021 05:47 - 3 posts
Corona Plague was Sweden’s controversial ‘herd immunity’ strategy correct all along? Controversial COVID-19 No Lockdown strategy ‘vindicated’
Sun, December 5, 2021 21:02 - 39 posts
RWED is DEAD....
Sun, December 5, 2021 19:55 - 39 posts
Mid-Term Elections 2022
Sun, December 5, 2021 18:57 - 164 posts
R.I.P. Bob Dole
Sun, December 5, 2021 16:54 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL