Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Perhaps not. But Mike will confirm that it was a request.

It is my studied opinion of Cali's post that he is probably posting mostly in jest, laughing at us for taking him seriously. So we may actually be the pinheads for ever taking any post seriously.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is my studied opinion of Cali's post that he is probably posting mostly in jest, laughing at us for taking him seriously. So we may actually be the pinheads for ever taking any post seriously.

If so, then I salute him.

That said, I never give liberals the benefit of the doubt.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

If so, then I salute him.

That said, I never give liberals the benefit of the doubt.

Cali is very bright and capable of sticking to his board persona, as I have it on other authority, he's not really like this in real life. So I know he's laughing his arse off at us.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm speaking about the politic merits, not the legal meaning. You state an axiom which is meaningless, all rights are circumscribed. Duh, sherlock, tell me something meaningful.

Based on your responses thusfar, it is meaningful. You seem to be indicating, along with Waters, that the 2nd Amendment stands alone among all rights in that it is absolute, incapable of being limited in any fashion. While I do believe it to be axiomatic that no rights are absolute, it seems worth repeating in the face of a statement to the contrary.

If you do not believe that the right to bear arms is absolute, then we are in agreement on that point and you can begin working to persuade Waters of the same. That then takes us to step 2 of the analysis: where then is the appropriate line? I have noted that the Supreme Court (including the current Court, with an opinion from one of the two most conservative members of the Court) has drawn the line in a way that excludes automatic weapons from protection. You may disagree, and you may even be right to disagree, but I have yet to hear anything from you better than "because I said so!"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Based on your responses thusfar, it is meaningful. You seem to be indicating, along with Waters, that the 2nd Amendment stands alone among all rights in that it is absolute, incapable of being limited in any fashion. While I do believe it to be axiomatic that no rights are absolute, it seems worth repeating in the face of a statement to the contrary.

If you do not believe that the right to bear arms is absolute, then we are in agreement on that point and you can begin working to persuade Waters of the same. That then takes us to step 2 of the analysis: where then is the appropriate line? I have noted that the Supreme Court (including the current Court, with an opinion from one of the two most conservative members of the Court) has drawn the line in a way that excludes automatic weapons from protection. You may disagree, and you may even be right to disagree, but I have yet to hear anything from you better than "because I said so!"

I agree with the well-armed militia concept plus an underdeveloped part, which I have yet to fully articulate, as part of Americana and our way of life. Arms-bearing is part of our culture, a good part, for the most and I am against most government impingements upon our freedoms and liberties, or what i agree to be our liberties.

In one sense, our rights are whatever the five members of Scotus say they are, and if they agree to limit them, unless we take up arms against them, then that's what they are.

I don't agree the government should have the right to limit the Second Amendment, unless you're arguing citizens don't need bazookas, or tanks, or nuclear bombs. So that's a limit in theory.

I am aware of the case law about the balancing of rights, but i stand against the government erosion or intrusion into our basic liberties.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree with the well-armed militia concept plus an underdeveloped part, which I have yet to fully articulate, as part of Americana and our way of life. Arms-bearing is part of our culture, a good part, for the most and I am against most government impingements upon our freedoms and liberties, or what i agree to be our liberties.

In one sense, our rights are whatever the five members of Scotus say they are, and if they agree to limit them, unless we take up arms against them, then that's what they are.

I don't agree the government should have the right to limit the Second Amendment, unless you're arguing citizens don't need bazookas, or tanks, or nuclear bombs. So that's a limit in theory.

I am aware of the case law about the balancing of rights, but i stand against the government erosion or intrusion into our basic liberties.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Why should the government have a right to limit bazookas or tanks or nuclear bombs?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now we're getting somewhere.

Why should the government have a right to limit bazookas or tanks or nuclear bombs?

Maybe they should be entitled to bazookas, but tanks and nuclear bombs are not the sort of thing you keep in your home.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe they should be entitled to bazookas, but tanks and nuclear bombs are not the sort of thing you keep in your home.

So your limitation extends to things you can keep in your home? Would you permit suitcase nuclear bombs? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? SAMs (could go nicely in the yard)?

I am just trying to understand where and why you draw the line you draw.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So your limitation extends to things you can keep in your home? Would you permit suitcase nuclear bombs? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? SAMs (could go nicely in the yard)?

I am just trying to understand where and why you draw the line you draw.

I haven't clearly thought about the line because it's already drawn further away than makes sense to me. I don't believe suitcase nuclear bombs are a reality, so we might as we discuss photon disrupter arrays while you're at it. Under international law some of those weapons are illegal for any nation to possess, so perhaps as long as international law does not go haywire, a limitation on the person would be anything that a nation state has agreed not to possess within its own arsenal.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I haven't clearly thought about the line because it's already drawn further away than makes sense to me. I don't believe suitcase nuclear bombs are a reality, so we might as we discuss photon disrupter arrays while you're at it. Under international law some of those weapons are illegal for any nation to possess, so perhaps as long as international law does not go haywire, a limitation on the person would be anything that a nation state has agreed not to possess within its own arsenal.

A citizen should be able to own the sort of weapons that would allow him or her to be an effective militia-member.

That's a very simple standard.