Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

The City of San Jose is racist, sexist and transphobic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

No. The right to own a firearm is explicit and specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This has been fought out in prior cases. 
 

No, an individual right was NEVER honored from 1787 until about 2008.  

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

I am not arguing for or against bodily autonomy for anyone, I am just being honest about what the constitution does and does not say. Gun ownership is an explicit right, Abortion is an implied right. (on shaky ground right now) 

ever heard of the 9th amendment?  Doubt it.  

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

If you want an explicit right for a woman to have an abortion that is cool, there is a process in place for you to achieve that. 

 

Yeah, we already did achieve it.  It’s a right to privacy, supported by the 14th amendment and the 9th.  If you DONT want a right to privacy in America, by all means, vote Republican. We can get rid of EVERY right except the right to buy politicians and shoot people.  
 

Superb stance you laid out on that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orygun said:

I never said it’s the law of the land.  I was expressing a policy opinion. My status as a lawyer doesn’t need to be dragged into every conversation. I’m very clear that you’re intimidated by my education.  You needn’t belabor that point.  

No one is intimidated by your education.  'Respectful,' of your education would be a better choice of words. 

We all know some really smart, and some really dumb, lawyers. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orygun said:

No, an individual right was NEVER honored from 1787 until about 2008.  

ever heard of the 9th amendment?  Doubt it.  

Yeah, we already did achieve it.  It’s a right to privacy, supported by the 14th amendment and the 9th.  If you DONT want a right to privacy in America, by all means, vote Republican. We can get rid of EVERY right except the right to buy politicians and shoot people.  
 

Superb stance you laid out on that.  

I don't believe you are a lawyer. You just play one on the internet

The right to privacy is an implied right created by a court. The 9th amendment was a basis for the argument in creating that implied right, but still no explicit right exists for privacy or abortion. 

Just because the 9th amendment it seeks to protect rights yet unnamed , the courts do not automatically say you can just create a right based on that alone. 

Please show me in the constitution where it says someone has a right to privacy. or an abortion. I will wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No. The right to own a firearm is explicit and specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This has been fought out in prior cases. 

The individual right to bear arms is not an explicit right. That's why it had to be fought out in prior cases. The current, individual right to carry a gun is a modern thing. Just look at gun control measures throughout history. I am not arguing for or against the right to carry a gun for anyone. I am just being honest about what the constitution does and does not say, and how those words have applied to people's right to carry a gun over history.

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I am not arguing for or against bodily autonomy for anyone, I am just being honest about what the constitution does and does not say. Gun ownership is an explicit right, Abortion is an implied right. (on shaky ground right now) 

You are arguing that the state has the authority to force people to do things with their bodies that they don't want to do. Do you need me to get out a dictionary?

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

If you want an explicit right for a woman to have an abortion that is cool, there is a process in place for you to achieve that. 

I assume women are people, so individual rights would apply before government decree. So I don't think that process should apply. Remember when people on the right used to pretend they believed that?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many shootings are done with legally owned guns. I know it's a very small percentage.

This new law will either remove legally owned guns, or create more illegally owned guns, but it won't address shootings.

Criminals with black market guns won't care about insurance.

It's nonsense. Those who are rich will pay and shrug. Those who are poor and can't afford it lose their right to self defense. I don't know why Democrat ideas are always so regressive. Like fuel taxes, it hurts the poor the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Orygun said:

I never said it’s the law of the land.  I was expressing a policy opinion. My status as a lawyer doesn’t need to be dragged into every conversation. I’m very clear that you’re intimidated by my education.  You needn’t belabor that point.  

Intimidated or underwhelmed by the post contents of supposedly an educated person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I don't believe you are a lawyer. You just play one on the internet

The right to privacy is an implied right created by a court. The 9th amendment was a basis for the argument in creating that implied right, but still no explicit right exists for privacy or abortion. 

Just because the 9th amendment it seeks to protect rights yet unnamed , the courts do not automatically say you can just create a right based on that alone. 

Please show me in the constitution where it says someone has a right to privacy. or an abortion. I will wait. 

You have no clue how constitutional jurisprudence is decided, do you?  The “explicit” right in the constitution is related to gun use within the context of a well regulated militia.  But go ahead and spew some hypocritical, uninformed bullshit about how I’m not a lawyer and the 2nd amendment gives you an unabridged right to shoot beer cans.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CV147 said:

I wonder how many shootings are done with legally owned guns. I know it's a very small percentage.

This new law will either remove legally owned guns, or create more illegally owned guns, but it won't address shootings.

Criminals with black market guns won't care about insurance.

It's nonsense. Those who are rich will pay and shrug. Those who are poor and can't afford it lose their right to self defense. I don't know why Democrat ideas are always so regressive. Like fuel taxes, it hurts the poor the most.

Blah blah blah more NRA talking points that are debunked when you look at literally any other developed country’s gun laws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

No one is intimidated by your education.  'Respectful,' of your education would be a better choice of words. 

We all know some really smart, and some really dumb, lawyers. 

Lol, sure, that’s you, “respectful”.  +++++ off.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orygun said:

You have no clue how constitutional jurisprudence is decided, do you?  The “explicit” right in the constitution is related to gun use within the context of a well regulated militia.  But go ahead and spew some hypocritical, uninformed bullshit about how I’m not a lawyer and the 2nd amendment gives you an unabridged right to shoot beer cans.  

The courts have already addressed this.   The fact that you disagree with the rulings in not relevant at all. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aslowhiteguy said:

The courts have already addressed this.   The fact that you disagree with the rulings in not relevant at all. 

And the courts have already addressed abortion.  It’s a fundamental right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orygun said:

Lol, sure, that’s you, “respectful”.  +++++ off.  

It is possible to respect someone's education without respecting the person.  

You completed law school and passed the bar.  I respect that.  You are still a despicable person whom I have no respect for.  

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aslowhiteguy said:

It is possible to respect someone's education without respecting the person.  

You completed law school and passed the bar.  I respect that.  You are still a despicable person whom I have no respect for.  

You don’t know the first thing about me. You’re a right-wing authoritarian piece of shit.  +++++ off and die.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orygun said:

You have no clue how constitutional jurisprudence is decided, do you?  The “explicit” right in the constitution is related to gun use within the context of a well regulated militia.  But go ahead and spew some hypocritical, uninformed bullshit about how I’m not a lawyer and the 2nd amendment gives you an unabridged right to shoot beer cans.  

No.

The explicit reading is that due to the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You're reading it backwards. Gun rights is necessary for a militia, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

You are arguing that the state has the authority to force people to do things with their bodies that they don't want to do.

States do this all the time, and they are within their rights to do so

You are required by law to wear clothes outside

Several states and municipalities have mandated a vaccine 

You can't walk down a public sidewalk and take a piss in the street. 

8 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I assume women are people, so individual rights would apply before government decree. So I don't think that process should apply. Remember when people on the right used to pretend they believed that?

The point I was making sailed way over your head , and you do not even know what you are responding too. 

The right to gun ownership, freedom of religion, Due process, the right against self incrimination etc are all explicit rights , that are specifically mentioned. 

The constitution left open a process to make new explicit rights and we have done this several times. The right for women to vote is an example, 

There is no explicit right to abortion, or privacy, they are implicit rights that a court created. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CV147 said:

No.

The explicit reading is that due to the fact that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You're reading it backwards. Gun rights is necessary for a militia, not the other way around.

Listen, dumbass, I know you’re just parroting Scalia’s nonsensical interpretation of the clause, but maybe try using YOUR OWN brain on this one.  The Supreme Court NEVER agreed with that clause interpretation until 2008.  That’s a fact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bornontheblue said:

Not explicit though 

That hardly matters.  Individual gun rights are also not explicit, but according to you they’re “better” rights than the right of a woman not to be strapped to a bed and forced into labor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

States do this all the time, and they are within their rights to do so

You are required by law to wear clothes outside

Several states and municipalities have mandated a vaccine 

You can't walk down a public sidewalk and take a piss in the street. 

The point I was making sailed way over your head , and you do not even know what you are responding too. 

The right to gun ownership, freedom of religion, Due process, the right against self incrimination etc are all explicit rights , that are specifically mentioned. 

The constitution left open a process to make new explicit rights and we have done this several times. The right for women to vote is an example, 

There is no explicit right to abortion, or privacy, they are implicit rights that a court created. 

 

 

 

What is “due process”, dipshit?  I dare you to define it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Orygun said:

You don’t know the first thing about me. You’re a right-wing authoritarian piece of shit.  +++++ off and die.  

^^ Posts like this are why you get no respect on this board. 

You are a drooling idiot who goes to great lengths, each and every day, to make certain no one forgets you are  the undisputed, Village Idiot of the MW board. 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...