Visualize Peace
War is unhealthy for children and other living things
Dissent!
Greenpeace
Sierra Club

Left by Anonymous on April 17th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

That’s weird, I only have one of those stickers (its the one about how I probably don’t really need my civil liberties) and to really top it off, I sleep with a .380 semi automatic beretta handgun in my headboard.

I also don’t think war is the answer.

I also have an antique winchester shotgun in my closet.

Since apparently you’ve never read the constitution, outside of what’s on your amendment of the day toilet paper, you’d have missed the fact that the second amendment starts with the phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” This is not 1776 or 1865 or yesterday for that matter. If you’d stop jacking off while looking through guns and ammo and dreaming of justifiable homicide for a minute, you’d realize that a well regulated militia is no longer a necessity.

We have a military (I know you know that, since you bring it up as often as John McCain brings up his stay in the Hanoi Hilton), and you therefore no longer have the right to keep and bare arms. Maybe you want to, but according to the constitution its not your right.

You right-tards really aren’t very good at being right-tards. I mean, your fighting for a right that’s not really protected by omitting a chunk of the amendment. Strict interpretationalist my ass.

Left by Kit Churchill on April 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Only a leftard could look at that sentence and discover that it isn’t a right after all.
Now I understand how the leftard Judges found the right to an abortion hidden in the right to privacy.
Look at the meaning of a militia at the time the document was penned.
Only a leftard would believe that the Bill of Rights is a grant of government power. Only a leftard would believe the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of natural rights that are presumed to exist, even in the absence of government, and are to be protected from goverment power and usurpation.
/feh

Left by no2liberals on April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

i didn’t look at the sentence and “discover” anything. its called reading. look into it.
lefttard judges didn’t look into the right to privacy and find the “right to have an abortion”. they looked into the right to privacy and found that the government does not have the right to tell you what medical procedures you can and can’t have, regardless of how morally bereft they are. that’s what right to privacy is, the right to be left alone righttard.
militia means the same thing now that it did then. a nongovernmental organized paramilitary force. we did need one. now we don’t. duh.
well, apparently then i’m not actually a lefttard seeing as how i don’t believe that the bill of rights is something the government grants us. i believe, as the framers did, that the bill of rights is just a listing of 10 very important rights that we as people are granted by god, and the purpose of listing them as a bill of rights is to specify those things that the government can’t infringe on.
basically, idiot (still using your real name i see), the second amendment says that in the absence of an actual government military the people have the right to keep and bare arms as a means for them to defend themselves. not defend themselves as individuals but to organize to defend the city or state or municipality or whatever.
instead of trying to talk like a big boy about constitutionality or about what a right is (read your history, the framers didn’t believe that these were natural rights, they were divine rights retard), spend some time looking into what conservativism is. i assume that’s what you think you are since you like throwing out “lefttard”’s because advocating for government interference (being anti-choice) and rereading the bill of rights and omitting sections which don’t benefit you (that’s called interpretational reading) aren’t exaclty in line with your own beliefs.

Left by kit churchill on April 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am

First of all, dip-shit, I’m not anti-choice, I’m anti-abortion. Which means, brain fart, that one still has a choice as to whether they want to get pregnant or not, but not the right to murder an unborn child.
As to your reference to selected interpretations of rights, that is what you are doing by saying the 2nd Amendment no longer applies, and only a lobotomized leftard like you would say that.
If you presume to know what the framers were saying, chicken shit, then you would read and study the Federalist Papers, as I have.
By the way Kit, are you too much of wuss to type my name? Go ahead, try it, I dare you, you acerbic tumor.

Left by no2liberals on April 18th, 2008 at 11:04 am

Now I understand how the leftard Judges found the right to an abortion hidden in the right to privacy.

A wingnut acknowlegding a constitutional right to privacy? Your talking points are bouncing off of each other again.

Only a leftard would believe the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of natural rights that are presumed to exist

As presumed by whom, Thomas Aquinas, or is it your imaginary friend in the sky who grants us these “rights?” Rights are human creations - there were no natural rights in the cave a mere 100, 000 years ago, just as there are no natural rights today. Force majure has and will always be the order of the day. Ask an unreconstructed Confederate about natural rights sometime, I’m guessing you know a few.

Left by Pat on April 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

More butt-nugget logic from Pat.

God given rights, dingus. You don’t need to believe, but your view isn’t the one that this nations foundation is based on. No, don’t know any of them, nor any from the Democrat Parties terrorist organization, the KKK.

As for the first quote, I know you are a dim bulb, so I will let you in on a little secret, it was irony….not ironing, but irony.

Your desperation to score points, in a battle of wits in which you have no ammo, is truly amazing.

Left by no2liberals on April 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

5f you believe in a sky-fairy, then logic is a concept you will never understand, Mr. anonymous ignoramus.

Left by Pat on April 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Well, Pat, of butt-nugget logic land, I do believe in God.
You, as are so many leftards, are quite smug in your lack of faith and understanding, and try and pretend you are some how superior.
The Director of the Human Genome program is a devout Christian too, so I would say that a man as smart as that, as steeped in science as he is, is an ignoramus in your view, as well.
Actually, Pat, your words in comparison with what’s really going on around you, show you have a lot of growing up to do, and a whole lot of learning too. Try and get over yourself, you ain’t perfect by a danged sight.
Science is God’s language.

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.

Left by no2liberals on April 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am

So I guess I should respond to all of this “writing” and “thought” in a really organized fashion so that you can keep up.

First, I can’t type your name. You hide behind anonymity while purporting to actually believe what you say while simultaneously, and markedly hypocritically, calling someone else “chicken shit.” If you don’t have the courage to associate your actual name with your own words, then you need to keep fighting with the rest of the idiots in your head and leave the rest of us to have real and actual adult conversations.

Being anti-abortion is being anti-choice. Whether you like the choice or not, something that cannot survive on its own is not, as the supreme court has ruled, alive. Its called the standard of viability. Maybe you would be more comfortable if we said that being anti-abortion is being pro-government interference? Or maybe pro-government making your decisions for you since you can’t do it yourselves. The moral repugnance of an act is not and cannot
be a factor in whether or not the government has a right to interfere with your decision as long as that decision only affects you, in the loosest allowable sense of utility. Before you try and say something about how the framers wouldn’t agree with that, let me go ahead and point you towards JS Mills who was one of Madison’s largest inspirations and happens to be a massive utilitarian. Read it, but make sure you actually grasp it, because whether you like it or not, utility is a part of the constitution. The woman is pregnant, its her body, its her choice. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that she’ll have some serious repenting to do to avoid hell, but what she chooses
to do is a matter of social correction. The government attempting to do so is the government attempting to legislate morality. I think you’ll find some stuff on the government overreaching its bounds and stepping into the realm of forcing a moral code on its people in the federalist papers.

If you would presume to tell someone that they don’t know what the framers were thinking because they haven’t read the federalist papers, then you have bigger problems to worry about then trying to sound educated on a blog. If you would remember, or in your case learn since you obviously didn’t catch it the first time, half of the found fathers belonged to a group called the anti federalists. In fact I think they had a political party. A political party that has grown and evolved into the republican party. Nice fact checking though, “dip shit”.

Since you have this confused let me go ahead and clear it up for you. I can’t, just like no one can, know for certain what the framers MEANT when they wrote the bill of rights. What I do know from reading the federalist papers and the constitution and the declaration of independence and any number of personal letters and journals, is that the framers of the constitution believed that we were granted by our creator certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ANTI federalists, NOT the federalists retard, believed that there were 10 rights so fundamental to the liberty of its citizens that they warranted placement in a special section of the constitution. In doing so, they are specifically enumerated and protected from a strong central government, which is what the ANTI federalists feared. How the federalists thought that a strong central republic with no enumerated list of rights would protect us is up for debate, but the fact is that they, the federalists you seem to love nutting over, did not believe in your explicit right to own a gun under any circumstance, rightard.

As to my “selected interpretation of rights” you’ve only proven that you’re not able to look at the words on the paper and read them as a complete sentence. I am NOT interpreting the constitution when I say that the right to keep and bear arms is no longer valid, I am reading them word for word and, apparently, since it doesn’t match your beliefs, that counts as interpretation. I think that technically makes you the revisionist leftard. Maybe if we took that sentence and removed it from that pesky strange “smart” wording you’ll grasp what it actually says and not what you think it does. I’ll even do it line by line so you don’t have to take any midol for cramps or headaches:

“If a well regulated non governmental paramilitary force is necessary to the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

you can compare it to the original text, and if you can actually fact check and make sure that you’re not contradicting yourself every time you open your math, then I’d love to see how you think I’m “interpreting” that you fascist douche bag.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

so what have we learned today? make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. make sure that the side you want to take is actually the side you think it is. and if you’re going to say you’ve read something, at least pick up the cliff’s notes so you can make sure you understand it, because, you obviously don’t get those federalist papers.

On another note, science isn’t god’s language retard. Science is about proof and the elimination of doubt so that you’re left with only those things that you know. God’s language is faith which is believing in the absence of proof. Trying to intermingle science and god is not just stupid and irresponsible, it demeans them both. Its as bad as the idea of a creation museum. Creation is about believing, not knowing, just like the resurrection. You can’t mix god and science. God is science, as he is all things.

Left by kit churchill on April 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

You can reply any way you like Kit, but until you type my name, I’m not going to read any of your leftard drivel.
See, you don’t get to chose my name, I do. It’s the innernut, dumb-ass, we are all anonymous, and if you think I believe that is your actual name appearing on my screen, then you are dumber than you have already exhibited to me, that you are.

Left by no2liberals on April 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

So, when the USSC strikes down the DC gun laws, will the whackjob need to be put on suicide watch? I think so!

Left by Anonymous on April 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Kit,

There is no “if” or “then” in the 2nd amendment. Your interpretation is incorrect but even if we were to use it, it would still be open to interpretation. Also, the use of the national guard/reserves/military as the “militia” is also incorrect since the military is a professional one and the guard and reserves are pressed into active duty as needed (they also go through basic and tech school with active duty).

Are you implying that the 2nd amendment is a collective right?

Regards,

Left by Cepik on April 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am

number 2,

…but until you type my name…?

real mature man. real mature. you’re like the six year old on the playground who got tagged but doesn’t want to be it so you scream and holler that you’re not it and pitch a fit until people who just want to play the game give up and make someone else it. you could not BE more childish.

i like how you continue to use words like ‘drivel’ when describing what someone else says. i get the impression that it really doesn’t matter who says it, only that its not what you agree with and therefore cannot possibly be right. i think that would bother me more if you had an original thought or idea, but your recitation of the talking points memo hardly warrants any real in depth consideration. actually, i take that back. saying that you have no ideas of your own and are copying o’reilly actually demeans him, since you lack even his limited relevance.

now, as to my name. you’re right. my birth certificate does NOT say kit churchill. it says christopher k churchill. the k in there is not for kit either. but, as kit is the proper (correct) english diminutive for christopher, that’s what my parents went with and what i kept. my name is really and actually kit churchill. i’m in the greater austin phone book. what’s bad for you is that, like most other conservatives (scratch that, you’re not conservative, you’re republican) i’ve had the joy of dealing with, you fail to make the distinction between what you know and what you believe to be. i know that you’re probably still not going to believe that my name is kit. and the truth is, i don’t care. but to say that i’m dumb because i think you’d believe what i tell you my name is, is to forget a very simple maxim that even someone as simple-minded as you should be able to grasp, the TRUTH of a statement is not predicated on your BELIEF of it. I can tell you that the sky is blue across the internet and you can sit in a chair rife with your own filth ranting about how only terrorists and leftards could possibly believe that the sky is blue, and how people who believe the sky is blue are un-american’s that we should drag behind cars with immigrants and toss over the border, but none of that ranting and screaming bereft of facts or understanding makes the sky NOT blue. you can rant and rave about what you believe all you want, but it doesn’t make any of it true. that should take care of the anonymity question. so, i challenge you to do the same. have the balls to stand by what you say. i do. i believe these things.

let’s look at a word count from you short response. you insulted my intelligence 3 times.

leftard. dumb-ass. dumber….

now, from someone who was unknown to me this could be hurtful. in your case it is laughable. you claimed to have read and understood marx and then had the audacity to claim that hillary and obama are raging marxists. then you turn around and tell me that to understand what the framers meant by the second amendment i should read the federalist papers. papers that were written by men who are federalists. men who advocated AGAINST the explicit protections from the federal government that are enumerated in the bill of rights. by continuing to speak, or, for that matter, breathe, you only prove that your attempts at attacking the intelligence of others is a means to compensate for your own inadequacies. being nominated among your group of rightards to speak because you’er the smartest rightard doesn’t make you smart, it makes you the least retarded.

Cepik,

you are right. there is no ‘if’ or ‘then’ in the second amendment, but absent of those exact two words, the wording of the 2nd amendment is nonetheless a logical conditional argument. the statement ‘being necessary to the security of the free state’ is the ‘if’ portion of this article. at the time that the second amendment was written, america did have an army, albeit and unorganized and still largely unprofessional one. it didn’t have the ability to serve the purpose it does now. we can see this in jay’s rebellion. even beyond that those who lived on the frontier of the western US would more than likely not have been able to live under the military’s protection given the unorganized and sparse pockets of population. what they’re doing by including this line is opening the door for the possibility that in the future a well regulated militia is not going to be necessary. and that’s where we are today. the average citizen does not need to have or possess a rifle so that when called up by the local austin 1st he is able to serve.

the national guard and the reserves don’t serve as the militia. they are replacements for the militia. a militia as properly defined is “a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.” the national guard and reserves qualify as professional soldiers because they receive paychecks for part time or emergency only service. another way to think of this is to make the distinction between professional and amateur. just like with athletes, the difference, by definition, is in whether or not you get paid for it. we would not consider the minutemen militia that existed in massachusetts a military, because it was a group of farmers and other men that came together to loosely serve a protectorate function. that is a militia. and as i’ve stated, those groups no longer have a place in american society.

as to your other question, kudos. its a very tough call and one well worth considering because of its implications on this debate but also its implications in other constitutional issues as well. the strict interpretationalist would have to say that this is a collective right, since the amendment does say the people, like all other amendments do, but this case is different in that the preface it by calling for the need of a militia. but, if we allow interpretation then you could say that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms so that he/she is able to join with another group of people who also have this right, in order to form a militia. personally, i tend towards the latter. not so much that there is a need for people to form a militia, but more that i don’t think the security of a free state requires a militia so much as it requires its citizens to be safe. the second amendment allows individuals to provide that security to themselves whether or not they ever need it. i think that my preference for allowing individuals to possess the means to protect themselves comes from my more overarching rejection of the idea of collective rights. as i understand it, the bill of rights and those specifically enumerated in the constitution are not rights that ‘the people’ have but that people have. i’ll have to look into it some, but right now i’d have to say that i don’t see them as collective rights, but as divine rights that a collected group of people may, or may have to, exercise.

Left by kit churchill on April 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Hey, everyone, do you think that you could possibly talk to each other in a civilized manner? Kit and No2Liberals, do you not live by the golden rule? “Treat others as you would be treated,” is how I believe it goes, and you may or may not call it something else but is it not something you live by? Yes, I realize that this adds nothing to this discussion but for the viewing of others leave the profanity out, not every one like to see curses spattered across their computer screens. One final point: yes, the internet offers anonymity but do you feel that it is alright to insult others just because you’re sitting behind a computer wearing the mask of the identity you choose to use on this particular site? Please reflect on these points, thank you

Briggs

Left by Briggs on May 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I know I’m a little late to be joining the argument but you guys do realize there is no right to privacy anywhere in the constitution right?

Left by Bob on October 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pm