Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 23:27:08 GMT -5
Oh Wally, your formation of history constantly overwhelms me! Wally must be getting the same Tea-Party e-mails I am getting. I have never in my life read so much ignorant drivel in my lifetime. They seem to believe that anyone who went past the 8th grade in school is either delusional, stupid, brainwashed, Satanic, or Communist -- unless, of course, he is .... better not say. I get several e-mails daily. I have no clue how they got my e-mail address, but I am so startled by everything they write that I haven't yet decided to tell them to get lost. after seeing the gymnastics you have gone over on "people" and "persons" i can understand how lost you really are....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 23:28:25 GMT -5
what you forget is how they put the 2nd into practice, how did they put it into practice? 1. they opened gunshops in the colonies 2. then ANYONE who could afford it could walk in and buy a firearm no questions asked... you should really give the 2nd amendment primer a read bob... Oh Wally, your formation of history constantly overwhelms me! simple facts simply put...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 23:50:54 GMT -5
Oh Wally, your formation of history constantly overwhelms me! simple facts simply put... baloney is still baloney, no matter how you slice it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 0:00:39 GMT -5
simple facts simply put... baloney is still baloney, no matter how you slice it i notice you can't come up with anything to refute what i said but can only offer ridicule or insults, thats very telling...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 2, 2014 0:39:15 GMT -5
Wally must be getting the same Tea-Party e-mails I am getting. I have never in my life read so much ignorant drivel in my lifetime. They seem to believe that anyone who went past the 8th grade in school is either delusional, stupid, brainwashed, Satanic, or Communist -- unless, of course, he is .... better not say. I get several e-mails daily. I have no clue how they got my e-mail address, but I am so startled by everything they write that I haven't yet decided to tell them to get lost. after seeing the gymnastics you have gone over on "people" and "persons" i can understand how lost you really are.... I know I'm lost ... but at least I know where I am.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 2, 2014 1:07:19 GMT -5
Tea party people seem quite bright. For instance there is that bright one called Sarah Palin. bwwwwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 5:02:32 GMT -5
Bobs quote Only human beings kill for the fun of it. People who do that are not good people, unfortunately. They are called sadists". you mean hunters? I mean People who kill for the fun/sport of it, not people who kill for food. Yes and the scriptures sanction that: "rise Peter, kill and eat what God hath cleansed, call no man unclean."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2014 10:39:19 GMT -5
No, but that was not the question. It was a constitutional question. Article 10 of the present Constitution gives the people the right to own firearms. That is "people", not "persons". I was treating it like a constitutional question. My error was that I used the word "people" -- Mexico doesn't give "persons" the right to carry firearms. In democracies, "people" means the "state", and "persons" means individuals. I was paraphrasing the Mexican constitution. Article 10 does give individuals the right to own firearms. That was, after all, the original question.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 2, 2014 12:30:27 GMT -5
baloney is still baloney, no matter how you slice it i notice you can't come up with anything to refute what i said but can only offer ridicule or insults, thats very telling... It wasn't necessary to refute anything, wally. Your statement answering Bob about how the 2nd amendment was "put into practice" just struck me as humorous . You said:1. they opened gunshops in the colonies 2. then ANYONE who could afford it could walk in and buy a firearm no questions asked...No doubt all the colonists already HAD a gun in that time period.
The government would not have found it necessary to provide the colonists "gun shops" in order to implement the 2nd amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 12:54:13 GMT -5
i notice you can't come up with anything to refute what i said but can only offer ridicule or insults, thats very telling... It wasn't necessary to refute anything, wally. Your statement answering Bob about how the 2nd amendment was "put into practice" just struck me as humorous . You said:1. they opened gunshops in the colonies 2. then ANYONE who could afford it could walk in and buy a firearm no questions asked...No doubt all the colonists already HAD a gun in that time period.
The government would not have found it necessary to provide the colonists "gun shops" in order to implement the 2nd amendment.
1. they opened gunshops in the colonies: means the people opened gunshops not the government, they had to get firearms from somewhere and people provided a way...im not saying there was one on every street corner either
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 2, 2014 18:01:04 GMT -5
That is "people", not "persons". I was treating it like a constitutional question. My error was that I used the word "people" -- Mexico doesn't give "persons" the right to carry firearms. In democracies, "people" means the "state", and "persons" means individuals. I was paraphrasing the Mexican constitution. Article 10 does give individuals the right to own firearms. That was, after all, the original question. You're right -- they may have them in their own homes -- regulated by the military. I think my original question was what government allows the people to arm themselves against their own military? Obviously not the Mexican government.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2014 18:06:46 GMT -5
Oh Wally, your formation of history constantly overwhelms me! Wally must be getting the same Tea-Party e-mails I am getting. I have never in my life read so much ignorant drivel in my lifetime. They seem to believe that anyone who went past the 8th grade in school is either delusional, stupid, brainwashed, Satanic, or Communist -- unless, of course, he is .... better not say. I get several e-mails daily. I have no clue how they got my e-mail address, but I am so startled by everything they write that I haven't yet decided to tell them to get lost. It gives you material for the humor thread!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2014 18:09:03 GMT -5
Tea party people seem quite bright. For instance there is that bright one called Sarah Palin. bwwwwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat. Sarah Palin. Yup she's the tea party's shining star for sure! The only thing scarier than her constant 'interesting' comments is her popularity.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 3, 2014 0:11:58 GMT -5
Tea party people seem quite bright. For instance there is that bright one called Sarah Palin. bwwwwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat. Sarah Palin. Yup she's the tea party's shining star for sure! The only thing scarier than her constant 'interesting' comments is her popularity. She said that! What I find really scary is that people vote for her and her kind.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 0:36:26 GMT -5
If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat. Sarah Palin. Yup she's the tea party's shining star for sure! The only thing scarier than her constant 'interesting' comments is her popularity. She said that! What I find really scary is that people vote for her and her kind. She talks religion, she talks WASP, and she's not bad looking. That's all that really counts to some people. Brains and sound judgment -- what's that?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 3, 2014 0:44:32 GMT -5
WASP? Two groups in NZ scare me, and I think there are similar groups the world over. They are the looney left and the rightous right. I think Palin belongs to the latter.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 0:51:25 GMT -5
WASP? Two groups in NZ scare me, and I think there are similar groups the world over. They are the looney left and the rightous right. I think Palin belongs to the latter. WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant And you haven't met the really far right until you come to the USA. Even the left in the US is kind of far right in most other countries.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 3, 2014 1:04:05 GMT -5
I have heard that Bob. Interesting thing about the voting population in the USA is there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's Is that true or was that just some addled TV reporter getting their macks fuddled?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 3, 2014 1:37:37 GMT -5
I have heard that Bob. Interesting thing about the voting population in the USA is there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's Is that true or was that just some addled TV reporter getting their macks fuddled? I don't know for sure but I expect that it is true that there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's.
Problem is, probably it is the WASP's that have most of the money.
PS: I like that "macks fuddled"
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 3, 2014 1:54:35 GMT -5
Is there one person. one vote in the USA? if so then money may not necessarily mean much.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 2:15:00 GMT -5
I have heard that Bob. Interesting thing about the voting population in the USA is there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's Is that true or was that just some addled TV reporter getting their macks fuddled? That's the rumor, but no, there aren't more Spanish speaking people than WASPs. The WASPs are still the majority. But the voting rates for the Spanish speaking population are lower proportionately than for the white population. To my knowledge I think California is the only state that is nearing an equal number of WASPs and others. Aside from the demographics, the US has a very long history of states making election rules that make it difficult, if not impossible, for some minorities to vote. And it makes it so easy to gerrymander districts because in this country when you register to vote they want to know the party you vote for. Otherwise there are some elections you cannot vote in.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 2:19:57 GMT -5
I have heard that Bob. Interesting thing about the voting population in the USA is there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's Is that true or was that just some addled TV reporter getting their macks fuddled? I don't know for sure but I expect that it is true that there are now more Spanish speaking people and others than WASP's.
Problem is, probably it is the WASP's that have most of the money.
PS: I like that "macks fuddled"
It's getting more and more difficult to maintain the WASP majority because WASPs worldwide are much less inclined to want to move to the US. There was a time when non-WASPs were restricted from coming here, and the Chinese for a long time were banned from coming here, except as indentured servants to build railroads -- but no women, so they wouldn't reproduce here. At least in Nevada they kept the brothels and opium dens in business.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 2:28:43 GMT -5
Is there one person. one vote in the USA? if so then money may not necessarily mean much. The theory is one person one vote, and national voting districts are mostly the same size in population across the country. But in some states there has been a history of districts being very unequal in population. Not so long ago in California the largest district had a couple million voters and the smallest had about 700 voters. But now that they pretty much have to have equal-population districts, they have become notorious for dividing up minority neighborhoods and adding them to other districts in order to dilute the community's chances of representation in government. Check the boundaries of voting districts in states especially in the SE and see the shape of some of the districts -- it's hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 3, 2014 2:43:26 GMT -5
Is there one person. one vote in the USA? if so then money may not necessarily mean much. Oh, about speech = money. Private money in this country buys votes -- that is, they can really spend all they want on campaigning with only some superficial restrictions. It is now even possible for foreign money to finance campaigns because of the recently relaxed rules about how much money individuals can contribute to elections. It's virtually impossible for a third party to get elected to the White House. Because the law provides that the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican candidate are automatically put on the ballot in all 50 states. But if a third party wants to run a candidate for president they the candidate has to appear in person in each individual state capital to register (or whatever they call it). With 50 states, that makes it virtually a two month job for the one candidate. Of course, Americans don't really vote for their president. It's happened not so long ago that the president with the greater number of votes lost to the guy with fewer votes. That's because California's 55 designated votes for president must all be from one party, even if that party only got 51% of the vote. That makes it so that if the 8 or 10 most populous states all vote 51 percent for one candidate, it makes no difference at all how the rest of the country voted. I find it quite ironic that when the US writes constitutions for other countries, they NEVER model them after the US Constitution. They always make them parliamentary democracies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 4:47:36 GMT -5
after seeing the gymnastics you have gone over on "people" and "persons" i can understand how lost you really are.... I know I'm lost ... but at least I know where I am. That -a - ;)boy wally, if you know where you are then you can't be lost, just temporarily misplaced, right?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2014 9:56:20 GMT -5
Of course, the members of the National Guard are members of the militia of the United States and the Nation Guard units are under the duel control of the federal government and the state government. The DoD, army, and air force are heavily invested as well. Not sure who would be in control if push came to shove. I've never heard of "Nation Guard". I haven't either but apparently my fingers had other ideas! You need to look into the State National Guard Units and who is ultimately in control. The president can activate the National Guard and place it under federal control. Even send members to fight in foreign conflicts. Perhaps you are referring to the "State Defense Forces" authorized under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 3, 2014 10:24:56 GMT -5
Is there one person. one vote in the USA? if so then money may not necessarily mean much. Oh, about speech = money. Private money in this country buys votes -- that is, they can really spend all they want on campaigning with only some superficial restrictions. It is now even possible for foreign money to finance campaigns because of the recently relaxed rules about how much money individuals can contribute to elections. It's virtually impossible for a third party to get elected to the White House. Because the law provides that the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican candidate are automatically put on the ballot in all 50 states. But if a third party wants to run a candidate for president they the candidate has to appear in person in each individual state capital to register (or whatever they call it). With 50 states, that makes it virtually a two month job for the one candidate. Of course, Americans don't really vote for their president. It's happened not so long ago that the president with the greater number of votes lost to the guy with fewer votes. That's because California's 55 designated votes for president must all be from one party, even if that party only got 51% of the vote. That makes it so that if the 8 or 10 most populous states all vote 51 percent for one candidate, it makes no difference at all how the rest of the country voted. I find it quite ironic that when the US writes constitutions for other countries, they NEVER model them after the US Constitution. They always make them parliamentary democracies. Like Canada where once the votes hit the Manitoba Ontario border it's already decided. The West hasn't influenced anything ever apparently.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2014 10:29:58 GMT -5
It's virtually impossible for a third party to get elected to the White House. Because the law provides that the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican candidate are automatically put on the ballot in all 50 states. But if a third party wants to run a candidate for president they the candidate has to appear in person in each individual state capital to register (or whatever they call it). With 50 states, that makes it virtually a two month job for the one candidate. Ballot access laws are defined by the individual states. The parties that are on the ballots can qualify in a number of ways. For example, in some states any registered political party can gain ballot access by getting signatures equal to a certain percentage of the votes cast in some previous election - perhaps 1% of the votes cast in the preceding election for governor. The person who that party nominates for the election will then be on the ballot. There is not need to appear in person. The two or three major parties are on the ballots because they routinely get more than the minimum percent of the vote (perhaps 5%) that is required for them to continue to be granted ballot access. If it is a grass-roots organization getting the required signatures it is much easier if there is a face to present when asking for support. However, without organizations in place gaining ballot access is a difficult task.
|
|