STILL President?
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
I fail to see what point of yours (regarding Obama or whatever) is proved by what former Justice Stevens said about the second amendment.
No more than you would change your name to TONI Haggler
hag·gle
dispute or bargain persistently, especially over the cost of something.
"the two sides are haggling over television rights"
synonyms: barter, bargain, negotiate, dicker, quibble, wrangle;
I know you are NOT a Hackle
/Hackle
The hackle is a clipped feather plume that is attached to a military headdress. In the British Army and the armies of some Commonwealth countries, the hackle is worn by some infantry regiments, especially those designated as fusilier regiments and those with Scottish and Northern Irish origins.
You seem to be more of a Haggler than a Hackler....
See what ya' started?
of debate, but keep convincing us how incoherent you really are......and you more often than not revert to name calling rather than discuss anything. Carry on..........
I'm not pc, JP.....LIBERALS are....for everybody but themselves.
ME?....incoherent?
Claims the person that thinks another person should change THEIR name from Wasserman to WasserPERSON?
What is "coherent" about THAT suggestion?
WAZ UP!!!! with that?
See how I worked the first part of her name in the post?
LIBERALS are
Name calling?
Pot...Kettle?
notice I didn't "edit" my earlier post?![]()
Whether I agreed or disagreed with that agenda does not matter.
BO is not driving the bus.
The child we have now who is driving the bus seems to have an agenda of convincing congress and other world leaders that nothing he says can be believed.
The 2nd is based on the need for a militia....we don't have such a thing.
Saying the 2nd gives someone the right to own a gun gets a little iffy......yes I'm aware what SCOTUS said.
If congress wants to give you the right to own a gun that's fine.
Pass some kind of rule/law/amendment that says that in plain English.
Then toss the 2nd.
As for the 'we don't have such a thing' regarding a militia.....The 2nd is based on the POSSIBLE need of a militia in the future. Congress doesn't have to pass anything regarding the right to own a gun....we already have that in the 2nd, and it's in plain English. The 2nd isn't going away even if you wish it to be so.
I don't have a problem with people owning a gun.
The 2nd was added because there was a need for a militia at the time.
We don't have that need today and it's highly unlikely we will ever have that need.
I don't expect the 2nd to be put in the bin unless an alternative is created first.
It was the SECOND priority of our Founders and they made SURE it would stay that way.....
Things like "Roe v Wade" and "Gay Marriage" garbage are ADD-INS, and were never even voted on by Congress which is mandatory for making law.
As for, "We don't have that need today and it's highly unlikely we will ever have that need.", don't be so sure......It's already found to be needed once.
were actually a clarification of what would otherwise be considered as "givens" in the constitution. Also remember that the constitution wasn't written as a pronouncement of the limitations of the people but of the limits of government prior to it's passing of any law.
[notorious king-huggers] would have blocked acceptance of the Constitution WITH the rights in it. Compromise, as usual. Could be wrong.
Article 1, Section 9, ¶ the first, opened the floodgates of importation of slaves until 1803, when Congress could have stopped their importation. Like stocking up on guns in case ... Of course any civilized nation runs its slavery in a businesslike manner, so there was provision for a tax. "Not exceeding ten dollars for each person".*
Ibid., ¶ the third, provides that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." Like the "well-regulated militia" amendment, no longer needed in any civilized country; not even in England.
All this comes from a little booklet "The Constitution", by those nice folks at the ACLU.
*Interesting. If a slave is a "person" here, why didn't they have the rights of persons in the various legal actions of the next century or so? And, if they were not human, as some slaveowners averred, what can we call those of the Founding Fathers who had sexual intercourse with them? I'm referring to the Fathers who established the US as a 'Christian nation'. That's in Article ... just a minute ... well, I'll find it later. Lev 18:23. As the noted political commentator Stan Freberg said, "George Washington was the Father of His Country in every possible way."