Mock

(12-15-2013, 02:40 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

I've actually come to like George since he left office. I found him to be charming & funny, he's very self-deprecating and I liked that in him.

I thought you meant George Zimmerman there for a couple of seconds!

George W is funny now he is no longer in power he's harmless he can't fuck anyone elses life up now.

(12-14-2013, 11:11 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]You must carry that just to attract the women. If you brought that to the park with you it would be almost as good as a puppy.

Hahahaha. It really is just sentimental for me [since it was what my dad carried for years.], but I will have to try using it to attract the women. However I doubt it will work better than my puppies though. LMAO !

Thats right OP. When I am feeling like John fucking Rambo I carry that. But when I am in that Mad Max mood I carry this.




Some times you feel like a nut. Some times you don't. LOL !!!



Then other times I get that, Lucas McCain wannabe feeling and throw on my cowboy hat and grab this and head out the door.




Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(12-15-2013, 06:39 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

That's hysterical. A big tough guy & his ankle biters.

Gotta luv em Duch. I would rather have small dogs anymore. Small dogs, small turds, lol. Plus the ladies LOVE those little dogs !

(12-15-2013, 06:39 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the species firearmus insanicus, more commonly know as the lesser spotted gun nut.

You know OP I like you. You are always good for a laugh.

Above the Law?



Some sheriffs are publicly refusing to enforce new laws in states that have limited magazine capacity and implemented universal background checks.

They're citing second amendment rights, which is a helluva stretch. The second amendment allows for a well-regulated militia. It does not guarantee or specify rights to own any type or any volume of guns/ammo to every citizen.

I think it sends a really wrong message about law enforcement officers to loudly and very publicly position themselves as being above the law, the lawmakers, and their police chiefs - which is the case in Colorado. Why not pledge to enforce the laws, as is their duty, but just make aggressively pursuing violations of those new laws low priority in their districts?

That's what Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County did; he's one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws. He he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” Palmer said.

I understand Palmer. If some tragedy occurs in his district that could have been prevented by more proactive/aggressive pursuit of gun law violations, he'll have a lot to answer for in prioritizing gun law enforcement so low. But, he's not suggesting that he's above the laws and essentially telling people that they're not required to be law-abiding just because he doesn't agree with the legislation, nor is he crying constitutional violations when they don't exist.

Sheriff Cooke (front left in photo above), on the other hand, is doing just that - claiming he's not required to follow the laws because they're not constitutional. Why would he do that rather than take Palmer's approach? Well, maybe the fact that he's running for Senate in 2014 and benefits from NRA-backing has a tiny bit to do with it.

I think Cooke and company's approach is irresponsible and, in some cases, for political gain only. STILL, they all get to say whatever they want, despite the potential impacts - that 1^st amendment right is indeed applicable here, so we'll see where it takes them.

Anyway, the band of sheriffs led by Cooke filed a federal lawsuit, but it was quashed because they have no authority to do so as a band of sheriffs, but are free to do so as individuals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/she...ntrol.html

The Law Enforcement Oath of Honor.

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution , my community and the agency I serve.


It could be said that they are upholding their oath, as they are upholding the constitution. Specifically the "shall not be infringed" portion of the second amendment.
Cherry picking and personal interpretation? Possibly.

Yeah, I think it's just trying to use the constitution to maintain a status quo that was never covered by the constitution in the first place.

Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Cooke's interpretation of "infringed", if that's indeed his contention here, is way too broad to hold up in a court of law, IMO. The courts already ruled that limiting magazine capacity to 15 is not an "infringement" of constitutional rights under the second amendment. No brainer, IMO.

The total ignoring of "well regulated" by some second-amendment advocates is beyond cherry-picking, it's willful ignorance IMO. It's an important portion of the amendment that often conveniently gets left out altogether by those citing the second amendment as a legal barrier to all forms of arms regulation (i.e. gun control).

Anyway, will be interesting to see how Cooke's senatorial bid pans out...

(12-16-2013, 09:44 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]You know OP I like you. You are always good for a laugh.

I'm just glad you don't take it to heart, its just a joke.

HotD, what is your opinion of the two different versions of the second amendment? Do you feel the final version of the second changes the meaning because there is only 1 comma instead of three?

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office.


A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

People in the state have a right to an arms-bearing militia, one that is well-regulated.

The additional comma(s) doesn't make any difference to me, F.U.

Now see there is part of the problem. One side concentrates on the well regulated militia portion of the 2^nd A, and the other side only looks at the shall not be infringed portion.


Back to the comma question. How would the commas effect the reading of the 2^nd? Does it change the meaning of any portion of it? This is not a IMO question this one is for the grammar police.

I know a little something about grammar, but I don't police it.

IMO, examining the comma usage in earlier drafts of the amendment won't result in increased clarity regarding the intent or interpretation of the amendment.

Even if it did, the final draft is the one that presides and is the one that's relevant.

Don't really see the point in a comma analysis of previous drafts, so not up for undertaking that exercise.

As you know I suck when it comes to grammar, that is why I asked.
Anyway, the 1 comma version was the final version.

(12-16-2013, 12:24 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]As you know I suck when it comes to grammar, that is why I asked.
Anyway, the 1 comma version was the final version.

It doesn't make any difference, IMO. But, it's cited both ways.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.

I guess it depends on who you listen to HotD.
the National Archives contains a three comma version

And the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma'


http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?col...recNum=144


The difference between the 1 comma and 3 commas, from what I am reading , is this.
The first unusual comma– between "Militia" and "being"– forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be infringed" near the end of the Amendment. The second unusual comma– between "Arms" and "shall"– sets off the verb phrase "shall not be infringed" from the preceding language; it suggests that the subject for this verb phrase is not simply "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The grammatical effect of these two unusual commas is to link "A well regulated Militia" to "shall not be infringed" to emphasize, in other words, that the goal of the Amendment is to protect the militia against federal interference.