129

[Duchess]

I already told you I can't answer your questions, that the only thing I knew for sure was that the 2A won't be taken away.

[rothschild]

Also, would someone please show me where the "right to bear ammo" is, in the Constitution?

I know ammo doesn't matter, to many folks, but I kinda do like the Constitution and believe in what is does and does not allow.

What's the point of an amendment prohibiting the infringement of the right to bear arms if ammunition is construed as being exempt?

[rothschild]

I already told you I can't answer your questions, that the only thing I knew for sure was that the 2A won't be taken away.

Constitutional reinterpretation is a reality because legislative amendments are far, far easier to pass than constitutional amendments. Judicial activism is easier still.

[BlueTiki]

Also, would someone please show me where the "right to bear ammo" is, in the Constitution?

I know ammo doesn't matter, to many folks, but I kinda do like the Constitution and believe in what is does and does not allow.

What's the point of an amendment prohibiting the infringement of the right to bear arms if ammunition is construed as being exempt?

That would be my argument if I wanted to circumvent "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ".

There is no Constitutional right prohibiting the government from allowing citizens from "bearing" ammunition.

It doesn't need to make sense . . . it is a fact . . . and one that could be argued and exploited, through judicial activism. 

California plans to ban fossil fuels to power vehicles.  So . . . by all means, all you Cali Comrades . . . you may keep your vehicle . . . but you may not purchase or possess gas for that vehicle.  We're not saying you can't have an automobile that runs on fossil fuel . . . we're saying that you can't purchase fossil fuel for the vehicle.

Apply the same logic to firearms.  What good are the weapons we send to Ukraine . . . if they have no ammo?

Is it absurd?  Absolutely!  Is it a viable Constitutional challenge argument . . . Yes.  And if I were tasked on making it . . . I would . . . with both truth and vigor.

I don't agree with this argument . . . but I cannot deny the underlying premise.  It is not emotion based.  It is a pure black and white, literal reading, of our Constitution. 

If I refuse to believe a man with a dick, that I can see, touch and confirm, is a "woman", why should I now pretend to see words that clearly are not there? 

Keep your guns . . . surrender your ammo.  Or make it extremely difficult to acquire it.

Mission accomplished.

[rothschild]

Also, would someone please show me where the "right to bear ammo" is, in the Constitution?

I know ammo doesn't matter, to many folks, but I kinda do like the Constitution and believe in what is does and does not allow.

What's the point of an amendment prohibiting the infringement of the right to bear arms if ammunition is construed as being exempt?

That would be my argument if I wanted to circumvent "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ".

There is no Constitutional right prohibiting the government from allowing citizens from "bearing" ammunition.

It doesn't need to make sense . . . it is a fact . . . and one that could be argued and exploited, through judicial activism. 

California plans to ban fossil fuels to power vehicles.  So . . . by all means, all you Cali Comrades . . . you may keep your vehicle . . . but you may not purchase or possess gas for that vehicle.  We're not saying you can't have an automobile that runs on fossil fuel . . . we're saying that you can't purchase fossil fuel for the vehicle.

Apply the same logic to firearms.  What good are the weapons we send to Ukraine . . . if they have no ammo?

Is it absurd?  Absolutely!  Is it a viable Constitutional challenge argument . . . Yes.  And if I were tasked on making it . . . I would . . . with both truth and vigor.

I don't agree with this argument . . . but I cannot deny the underlying premise.  It is not emotion based.  It is a pure black and white, literal reading, of our Constitution. 

If I refuse to believe a man with a dick, that I can see, touch and confirm, is a "woman", why should I now pretend to see words that clearly are not there? 

Keep your guns . . . surrender your ammo.  Or make it extremely difficult to acquire it.

Mission accomplished.

That's a patently disengenuous interpretation, in my opinion, because it ignores what the authors intended. Without rigorous effort to interpret objectively, law is merely a sham.

[BlueTiki]

But an interpretation, nonetheless.  I don't recall who said: "The successful anarchist uses the words of the system . . .  against  the system."

Maybe it was me . . . or The Vandals.  Sounds like something I would say . . . or at least have printed on a T-Shirt for Antifa or BLM.  You get my point.

The supposed forum for the ultimate "rigorous efforts to interpret (the law) objectively", allegedly is within the Courts.

Alas, now they are being disseminated only as emotional "feelings as facts" and being spoon-fed by illiterate talking-heads masquerading as "journalists" and media "experts" pitching their opinions as "facts" or (refutable) political dogma . . . without discussion and prohibiting dissent or differing opinions.

I clearly stated it was an absurd argument that I didn't personally support.  However, it is a position subject to your rigorous and objective interpretation.

To pretend otherwise is arrogant and foolish  . . . and it is neither emotional nor untrue. 

Now . . . show me where in the Constitution it states that the founding fathers prohibited citizens from owning the same firearms as used by the military.

Or when Indigenous people were granted citizenship and the right to vote?

(BTW - Blacks got citizenship before women got the right to vote.  Yeah . . . I love me some of that white women privilege . . . always at the expense of other races!)   

[rothschild]

If we don't read for comprehension, all we end up with is bastardization of understanding and language -- which makes meaningful communication extremely difficult and tedious.

The root of this, in my opinion, is that law and economics are founded on amorality, on the premise that that is the only way to achieve objectivity, which legitimizes corruption. What is the value of scientific methodology if it's applied dishonestly? A negative value in terms of objective inquiry, which can only be destructive of the general interests of society. Honesty is a major component of morality, and by morality I am not referring to religious dogma. Morality is rooted in spirituality and philosophy, without which we are nothing more than clever animals, invariably undone by the failure to understand the world we inhabit. Without understanding there is no adaptation relative to an environment that is constantly changing. In the long-term, that's deadly.

Honesty allows for the acquisition of universal knowledge that transcends national and cultural particularities. By legitimizing amorality, these differences are insurmountable obstacles to resolving the conflicts that have caused global stagnation and degradation, leaving us with nothing but chaos.

Legislation, much like medicine, treats symptoms rather than causation, which is symptomatic of the degeneration I've outlined. This is why I refuse to jump on the bandwagon re gun control, as it facilitates the continuation of our inability to diagnose and solve complex problems.

[BlueTiki]

Fight The Power!, RC.

That was Public Enemy . . . not me . . . who said that.

I can't post a meme or a pic of the group, as I am not Black and if I did so, it is now racist because it is deemed "Digital Blackface".

[rothschild]

Fight The Power!, RC.

That was Public Enemy . . . not me . . . who said that.

I can't post a meme or a pic of the group, as I am not Black and if I did so, it is now racist because it is deemed "Digital Blackface".

How about survival, Tiki? A bit too primal for the bourgeois wunderland we call society?

Did you know that you can buy Rage Against The Machine t-shirts at Walmart? If that doesn't say it all, what does?

[Duchess]

[Duchess]

Shoot. I should have quoted.

[rothschild]

I clearly stated it was an absurd argument that I didn't personally support.  However, it is a position subject to your rigorous and objective interpretation.

To pretend otherwise is arrogant and foolish  . . . and it is neither emotional nor untrue. 

Where in the Constitution is the right to bear arms granted?

Is the purpose of bearing arms negated by an interpretation that deems ammunition to be a separate entity?

What do you think is the threshhold for the determination of rigorous objectivity?

Do specious arguments meet an objective threshhold?

Now . . . show me where in the Constitution it states that the founding fathers prohibited citizens from owning the same firearms as used by the military.

The Constitution clearly articulates the remedy for such matters, does it not?

[BlueTiki]

Sorry was responding to your survival post and didn't see your recent ones. This deals with Survival.

Hang on . . . I'm gonna fire up the Gaggia so we can have espresso while we chat.  Please . . . pull up a chair and get comfortable and let me know how you like your "Joe" (coffee . . . not Biden).  While the machine heats up and I grind the beans, I've got to tell you that my Mum had one on me, yesterday, when I popped by for a visit.  She was asking about Paras (the girl who just had the baby and the one I'm making the casserole for, tonight).  I said I read, that for the first time in history, Native American births are outnumbering White births in America.

She smiled and then said, with a slight grin: "Actually, it's the second  time."  I had to think about that one for a second.  At 95 years old, she is still my oracle for wisdom and subtlety.

Okay . . . here we are then. I made them doubles. Please help yourself to the steamed milk, cream and sugar.  I do hope you'll find this particular roast, to your liking.

So . . . there's climate change and the survival of the planet.  There's the TRANS Community and their fear of survival.  And lest we forget, the survival of democracy, too.  Yes, yes, yes I know there are many others but please, just humor me and allow these three, as the basis for discussion.  I think we can agree that the word "Genocide" has been used as a term, associated with threatening each one's (the planet's eco-system, a self-identifying group and a political philosophy) survival. 

"By their actions (or inactions of some group), they are committing genocide and directly threatening the survival of said cause!"  And a Hitler reference is usually tossed in to punctuate dissenting voices to the various causes.  Normally, I'd say something like:  "Genocide and threat to survival like Hitler?  Whew! You had me worried for a second. If you said Stalin or Mao, then I'd be really be worried!  Hitler was an amateur, compared to those guys!"

Survival, like genocide, when used in any of these contexts, is self-serving hyperbole.  It is an emotional and baseless term, used to inflame and incite.  Everything survives.

The earth and climate?  Experienced extreme heat to ice ages . . . survived.  Self-identification and expression throughout the ages . . . survived.  Democracy as both idea and practice . . . survived.  Forget critical thinking and reasonable, factual discourse.  Put the blame on where it truly lies . . . on the native indigenous population of the Americas.

If we had real and effective border security, none of you non-indigenous people of various races, ethnicities, religions, cultures and ideologies would have ever had the opportunity to fuck things up, here.  

And when we finally realized what we had done by allowing you "visitors" entry into our land  . . . and then raised a hue and cry . . . you performed this country's greatest genocide to eradicate our survival as a people.

You even screwed that up, too.  You couldn't even do that as effectively as Hitler!  I guess that's a plus for us (and anyone who claims Hitler-esque tactics against their cause).

So spare me about survival.  We survived . . . against the odds . . . and with few in our corner.   

Another espresso?  I can reheat some fry-bread and have some delicious mesquite Honey, to top it with.

And I did see the Rage Against the Machine T-Shirt, at WalMart.  It was flanked by the Ya'll Need Jesus T-Shirt to the left and the Rainbow Flag T-Shirt, to the right.

Do you think they did that as a joke?  You know . . . the whole right and left thing.

Sometimes . . . you just need to look at and appreciate the absurd, to see the truth.

[rothschild]

Gonna need another cup of joe to properly get into this. (Sumatra Mandheling -- whole bean -- to be precise.)

Normally have one cup per day, but good discussion is grounds for an exception.

[BlueTiki]

Gonna need another cup of joe to properly get into this. (Sumatra Mandheling -- whole bean -- to be precise.)

Normally have one cup per day, but good discussion is grounds for an exception. 

Sumatran . . . nice choice!

I believe you have more than sufficient grounds, for a second cup.

Gotta run . . . casserole is waiting!

[sally]

I have the skills to survive. Lately I've been rising up and back on the street, standing up to my rival. You know what that's called, baby! No coffee needed.

[rothschild]

As someone who identifies as a human being -- and prefers to keep company with those who similarly identify -- I was referring to the survival of humanity, which is one of those words that few people give much thought to. In a healthy society, that would be a universally inclusive identity -- in the truest sense of inclusivity -- but alas, those who have championed the cause of "inclusivity" are exclusively concerned with particularity. As Rousseau expounded, it's the art of getting others to serve your interests, while thinking they're serving their own. That's the beauty of corruption: those who know not who they really are, are incapable of discerning those who are not what they appear to be. Which begs the question; who are the blind?

To see, yet remain inobservant, is corruption, because we have the capacity to do so and are manifestly rewarded in return. The only reason people fear what might be is because they're disempowered. They feel "safe" in inobservancy, and as a consequence are exploited by those who prey upon psychological weakness. Is that survival of the fittest? Only if we equate fitness with depraved indifference. It's acceptable if we're speaking of parasites, but I like to think that human beings are a few rungs up on the evolutionary ladder.

[Clang McFly]

I have the skills to survive. Lately I've been rising up and back on the street, standing up to my rival. You know what that's called, baby! No coffee needed.

Eye of the Tiger....the new Covid cure. 100% more effective than horse wormer pills.

[MirahM]

On our news it stated that the USA has had 129 gun attacks this year, and its only March.  I know your going to get upset, but it bears discussion.  If those attacks were carried out by terrorists the USA would be on high alert, like after the twin towers.

What got me is how cool that m fkr was walking into the school. 

Something has to be done.   Biden has said so, but  like healthcare he will do nowt.  And hes in charge.   It seems to me you have a president, but has no power, he should be able to pass gun laws.

This article says that guns were the #1 leading cause of death of chidren under the age of 19 in 2020. This doesn't include deaths of infants for infant specific death issues.

3219 firearm deaths in 2020 of those under the age of 19
2,882 vehicular deaths.

So I think the logical thing is to ban the sale of all motorized vehicles. Kidding.

Gun violence claimed more lives in 2020 (over 45,000) than it had any other year on record.

That is a relief, I hoped Covid hadn't taken ALL of those lives!



https://www.statesman.com/story/news/pol...529783001/

[rothschild]

On our news it stated that the USA has had 129 gun attacks this year, and its only March.  I know your going to get upset, but it bears discussion.  If those attacks were carried out by terrorists the USA would be on high alert, like after the twin towers.

What got me is how cool that m fkr was walking into the school. 

Something has to be done.   Biden has said so, but  like healthcare he will do nowt.  And hes in charge.   It seems to me you have a president, but has no power, he should be able to pass gun laws.

This article says that guns were the #1 leading cause of death of chidren under the age of 19 in 2020. This doesn't include deaths of infants for infant specific death issues.

3219 firearm deaths in 2020 of those under the age of 19
2,882 vehicular deaths.

So I think the logical thing is to ban the sale of all motorized vehicles. Kidding.

Gun violence claimed more lives in 2020 (over 45,000) than it had any other year on record.

That is a relief, I hoped Covid hadn't taken ALL of those lives!

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/pol...529783001/

PolitiFact is owned by the Poynter Institute. One of the Poynter Institute's largest donors is mega-billionaire Charles Koch, whose father helped found the John Birch Society.

Just sayin'.