|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414862 is a reply to message #414861] |
Sat, 25 June 2022 18:24   |
|
|
Originally posted by: pH
On 2022-06-25, Liberalism, turning men into women one fag at a time <queers@liberal-cunts.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2022, "jecorbett19580@yahoo.com" <jecorbett19580@yahoo.com>
> posted some news:9cbfb8e8-8829-4792-9e2f-2b46ee91bda4n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> "So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict
>> abortions, but doesn't have the right to restrict firearms? Is that
>> what we have now in these 'United' States?" George Takei tweeted.
>
> George wasn't bright enough to be one of the smart kids. I was impressed
> that William Shatner didn't stuff him in a bag and chuck him in a wood
> chipper.
>
Yes. The States were reluctant to form a Confederation and wanted to insure
maximum autonomy.
The reulting Fedeal Gov't's powers, therefore, were restricted and limited
to the 13 or 19 (whatever) powers enumerated in the Constitution.
The States, on the other hand, powers were to be manifest and unlimited with
most powers residing in the States and People.
The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as good old #2 (and
"well-regulated" in those days meant to be made regular: ie: well-equipped)
So the Feds have standing in this arena.
Abortion is *not* in the Federal Gov't's list of duties and is rightlfully
left to the States. It's one of those things which will be debated forever
as the death penalty. This Supreme Court actually followed the law. Good
for them.
Our founders did not want centralization of power and neither should we if
we had any sense.
Off my soapbox....I feel much better now.....sigh.
Pureheart in Aptos, CA
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414863 is a reply to message #414861] |
Sat, 25 June 2022 18:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pH
On 2022-06-25, Liberalism, turning men into women one fag at a time <queers@liberal-cunts.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2022, "jecorbett19580@yahoo.com" <jecorbett19580@yahoo.com>
> posted some news:9cbfb8e8-8829-4792-9e2f-2b46ee91bda4n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> "So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict
>> abortions, but doesn't have the right to restrict firearms? Is that
>> what we have now in these 'United' States?" George Takei tweeted.
>
> George wasn't bright enough to be one of the smart kids. I was impressed
> that William Shatner didn't stuff him in a bag and chuck him in a wood
> chipper.
>
Yes. The States were reluctant to form a Confederation and wanted to insure
maximum autonomy.
The reulting Fedeal Gov't's powers, therefore, were restricted and limited
to the 13 or 19 (whatever) powers enumerated in the Constitution.
The States, on the other hand, powers were to be manifest and unlimited with
most powers residing in the States and People.
The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as good old #2 (and
"well-regulated" in those days meant to be made regular: ie: well-equipped)
So the Feds have standing in this arena.
Abortion is *not* in the Federal Gov't's list of duties and is rightlfully
left to the States. It's one of those things which will be debated forever
as the death penalty. This Supreme Court actually followed the law. Good
for them.
Our founders did not want centralization of power and neither should we if
we had any sense.
Off my soapbox....I feel much better now.....sigh.
Pureheart in Aptos, CA
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414869 is a reply to message #414862] |
Sun, 26 June 2022 06:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Daniel65
pH wrote on 26/6/22 8:24 am:
> On 2022-06-25, Liberalism, turning men into women one fag at a time
> <queers@liberal-cunts.net> wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2022, "jecorbett19580@yahoo.com"
>> <jecorbett19580@yahoo.com> posted some
>> news:9cbfb8e8-8829-4792-9e2f-2b46ee91bda4n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> "So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict
>>> abortions, but doesn't have the right to restrict firearms? Is
>>> that what we have now in these 'United' States?" George Takei
>>> tweeted.
>>
>> George wasn't bright enough to be one of the smart kids. I was
>> impressed that William Shatner didn't stuff him in a bag and chuck
>> him in a wood chipper.
>
> Yes. The States were reluctant to form a Confederation and wanted to
> insure maximum autonomy.
>
> The reulting Fedeal Gov't's powers, therefore, were restricted and
> limited to the 13 or 19 (whatever) powers enumerated in the
> Constitution.
>
> The States, on the other hand, powers were to be manifest and
> unlimited with most powers residing in the States and People.
>
> The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as good old #2 (and
> "well-regulated" in those days meant to be made regular: ie:
> well-equipped) So the Feds have standing in this arena.
I'm no expert on your Constitution but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
or Harry entitlement!!
--
Daniel
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414870 is a reply to message #414862] |
Sun, 26 June 2022 06:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Daniel65
pH wrote on 26/6/22 8:24 am:
> On 2022-06-25, Liberalism, turning men into women one fag at a time
> <queers@liberal-cunts.net> wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2022, "jecorbett19580@yahoo.com"
>> <jecorbett19580@yahoo.com> posted some
>> news:9cbfb8e8-8829-4792-9e2f-2b46ee91bda4n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> "So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict
>>> abortions, but doesn't have the right to restrict firearms? Is
>>> that what we have now in these 'United' States?" George Takei
>>> tweeted.
>>
>> George wasn't bright enough to be one of the smart kids. I was
>> impressed that William Shatner didn't stuff him in a bag and chuck
>> him in a wood chipper.
>
> Yes. The States were reluctant to form a Confederation and wanted to
> insure maximum autonomy.
>
> The reulting Fedeal Gov't's powers, therefore, were restricted and
> limited to the 13 or 19 (whatever) powers enumerated in the
> Constitution.
>
> The States, on the other hand, powers were to be manifest and
> unlimited with most powers residing in the States and People.
>
> The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as good old #2 (and
> "well-regulated" in those days meant to be made regular: ie:
> well-equipped) So the Feds have standing in this arena.
I'm no expert on your Constitution but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
or Harry entitlement!!
--
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414878 is a reply to message #414877] |
Mon, 27 June 2022 08:56 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Mighty Wannabe
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote on 6/27/2022 8:49 AM:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:42:41 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm no expert on your Constitution
> That is clear.
>
>> but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
>> bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
>> or Harry entitlement!!
> Wrong. It does not give *any* rights. Nothing in the Bill of rights
> gives any rights to anyone.
>
It is a God-given right for one to bare one's arms if one wants to. Long
sleeves are too cumbersome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414880 is a reply to message #414878] |
Mon, 27 June 2022 09:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:56:11 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
< 👩ðŸ?½â€?⚕ï¸?👨â€?⚕ï¸?🠑®ðŸ‘¨ðŸ?¿â€?🚒👷@ðŸ?».ðŸ??🎠–ï¸? >
wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote on 6/27/2022 8:49 AM:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:42:41 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm no expert on your Constitution
>> That is clear.
>>
>>> but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
>>> bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
>>> or Harry entitlement!!
>> Wrong. It does not give *any* rights. Nothing in the Bill of rights
>> gives any rights to anyone.
>>
>
> It is a God-given right for one to bare one's arms if one wants to. Long
> sleeves are too cumbersome.
You ought to take that act on the road! It's SO FUNNY! I've never
heard that before!
No, I mean it!
Take it on the road.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414883 is a reply to message #414862] |
Mon, 27 June 2022 12:49 |
Scout
Messages: 4
Registered: April 2005
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"pH" <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> wrote in message
news:t981tv$3kjcg$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2022-06-25, Liberalism, turning men into women one fag at a time
> <queers@liberal-cunts.net> wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2022, "jecorbett19580@yahoo.com" <jecorbett19580@yahoo.com>
>> posted some news:9cbfb8e8-8829-4792-9e2f-2b46ee91bda4n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> "So let me get this straight. A state has the right to restrict
>>> abortions, but doesn't have the right to restrict firearms? Is that
>>> what we have now in these 'United' States?" George Takei tweeted.
>>
>> George wasn't bright enough to be one of the smart kids. I was impressed
>> that William Shatner didn't stuff him in a bag and chuck him in a wood
>> chipper.
>>
>
> Yes. The States were reluctant to form a Confederation and wanted to
> insure
> maximum autonomy.
>
> The reulting Fedeal Gov't's powers, therefore, were restricted and limited
> to the 13 or 19 (whatever) powers enumerated in the Constitution.
>
> The States, on the other hand, powers were to be manifest and unlimited
> with
> most powers residing in the States and People.
>
> The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights as good old #2 (and
> "well-regulated" in those days meant to be made regular: ie:
> well-equipped)
> So the Feds have standing in this arena.
>
> Abortion is *not* in the Federal Gov't's list of duties and is rightlfully
> left to the States. It's one of those things which will be debated
> forever
> as the death penalty.
I will simply note the death penalty is allowed under the 5th Amendment.
> This Supreme Court actually followed the law. Good
> for them.
>
> Our founders did not want centralization of power and neither should we if
> we had any sense.
>
> Off my soapbox....I feel much better now.....sigh.
>
> Pureheart in Aptos, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414888 is a reply to message #414877] |
Mon, 27 June 2022 18:51 |
|
|
Originally posted by: pH
On 2022-06-27, Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:42:41 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm no expert on your Constitution
>
> That is clear.
>
>> but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
>> bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
>> or Harry entitlement!!
>
> Wrong. It does not give *any* rights. Nothing in the Bill of rights
> gives any rights to anyone.
>
Affirm.
The U.S. founders operated on the assertion that our rights are innate, or
God-given, if you will, and that "...governments are instituted among men to
*protect* those rights."
This is in direct opposition to the UN Declaration of Human Rights where
they say that they get to enumerate one's rights with their good old item
#22 I think, where it says they are the Boss in any case, list of 'rights'
nonwithstanding.
pH in Aptos
|
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, George, you got this straight [message #414889 is a reply to message #414888] |
Mon, 27 June 2022 19:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:51:56 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:
> On 2022-06-27, Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 20:42:41 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm no expert on your Constitution
>>
>> That is clear.
>>
>>> but I though #2 gave you the Rite to
>>> bare Arms *as part of a (well organised??) Militia* not as any Tom, Dick
>>> or Harry entitlement!!
>>
>> Wrong. It does not give *any* rights. Nothing in the Bill of rights
>> gives any rights to anyone.
>>
>
> Affirm.
> The U.S. founders operated on the assertion that our rights are innate, or
> God-given, if you will, and that "...governments are instituted among men to
> *protect* those rights."
>
> This is in direct opposition to the UN Declaration of Human Rights where
> they say that they get to enumerate one's rights with their good old item
> #22 I think, where it says they are the Boss in any case, list of 'rights'
> nonwithstanding.
>
> pH in Aptos
Blue helmets make great targets, if they think they have the power to
tell me I don't have the right to be armed.
Funny that "paid vacations" are important enough for them to mention,
but not self defense.
Fuck 'em.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
