With Liberty, and Justice for Straight, White, Male Property Owners.

[ZackB]

Us white, male property owners ought to have more rights and liberties since we contribute far more to society. Remember when Obama and noted injun squaw Elizabeth Warren told people that they "did not build" their businesses, that there businesses were facilitated by the infrastructure paid for by tax money? Remember how you idiots fell for that, acting like YOU had some sort of proprietary and vested interest in America, even though you do not pay income taxes? Remember that?

Who really built America? We did. The white male, tax paying property owners did. We are the ones who pay the bulk of income taxes that finance the construction of the roads that allow you to get to your doctor so you can leech money through Medicaid, get you to H&R Block so you can get all of your income tax payments refunded to you plus get cash payments for your tax credits (i.e., subsides), get you to the supermarket to spend your food stamps, get you to the Social Security office to apply for disability benefits, get you to the nearest public college campus to apply for government guaranteed education loans and grants, drive you to the local office of the USDA/VA/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to get government guaranteed mortgage loans, get you to the bank to apply for an SBA guaranteed loan so you can open a taco stand, get to the Dept. of Labor to collect your unemployment benefits, etc...

Yes, you have equal rights. But you ought not have unless you contribute. Moreover, you ought to have the decency and class to not ask for anything until you have contributed and, thereby, earn it. It is like going to a picnic, not bringing anything, but eating food the other people have brought. It is uncouth and symptomatic of a degenerate person who has no morality.

I am not saying we ought to let all of the skags starve in the streets (though, I am not not saying it either). They can have charity. But they ought to accept it with the humility of someone receiving charity rather than with the fucked up mentality that they are entitled to it. You are entitled to nothing. The constitution does not entitled you to economic benefits. You are merely the beneficiary of statutory charity that taxpayers involuntarily fund. It could change next year.

 

[martybegan]

As for heller, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not the state, not the militia, not the government only, the PEOPLE.

Except that isn't how the 2nd was interepreted for 200 years prior to Heller. for 200 years, courts have held that the MILITIA has the right to bear arms, not the Crazy Guy who thinks he's the Joker.

And as for citizens united, forming a corporation doesn't mean you lose your 1st amendment rights.

The transfer of property is not speech, and corporations don't have religions.

For most of those 200 years the idea that a law abiding citizen could be restricted from owning his own firearms wasn't even considered. Towns banned guns, but only because they were small enough that local law enforcement could guarantee the safety of all in the town. Find me a Police force in the US today that guarantees that.

People are still people, and they still have the right to petition their government for redress. it doesn't say you lose that because you go into business.

 

[martybegan]

Actually he believed that if you want to change the constitution, you use the amendment process as intended, not by convincing 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to do it for you. That he actually was one of those un-elected lawyers and understood the intended limits of his position only increases my respect for him, regardless of your feckless hatred of him.

Bullshit. Point out to me where the concept of Corporate Personhood is in the constitution. It isn't there, until Scalia and other made it up.

Scalia was a tool of big corporations and interests, not the constitution...

Now he's feeding some well-deserving worms, which is probably his first useful act.

Point out in the constitution where you lose your rights just because you incorporate a business.

And your callous hate is noted.

 

[JoeB131]

For most of those 200 years the idea that a law abiding citizen could be restricted from owning his own firearms wasn't even considered. Towns banned guns, but only because they were small enough that local law enforcement could guarantee the safety of all in the town. Find me a Police force in the US today that guarantees that.

Why do you always restrict your argument to the US? Hey, guess what, guy, the rest of the Western World does EXACTLY that. The problem with you compensators is you think gun ownership is the solution when it's the PROBLEM.

People are still people, and they still have the right to petition their government for redress. it doesn't say you lose that because you go into business.

Corporations are not people.

 

[defcon4]

Why do you always restrict your argument to the US? Hey, guess what, guy, the rest of the Western World does EXACTLY that. The problem with you compensators is you think gun ownership is the solution when it's the PROBLEM.

Uh..guy, you got it wrong again. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for the people. European (the rest of the Western World using your words) countries do not. Go back to Civics 101 then come back and report. Thank you for participating. You can sit down now, guy.

 

[bripat9643]

For most of those 200 years the idea that a law abiding citizen could be restricted from owning his own firearms wasn't even considered. Towns banned guns, but only because they were small enough that local law enforcement could guarantee the safety of all in the town. Find me a Police force in the US today that guarantees that.

Why do you always restrict your argument to the US? Hey, guess what, guy, the rest of the Western World does EXACTLY that. The problem with you compensators is you think gun ownership is the solution when it's the PROBLEM.

Since we live in the U.S., that's what he talks about. Do you think we should consider the history of gun laws in England or France?

People are still people, and they still have the right to petition their government for redress. it doesn't say you lose that because you go into business.

Corporations are not people.

They are composed of people, and business owners are people.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh..guy, you got it wrong again. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for the people. European (the rest of the Western World using your words) countries do not. Go back to Civics 101 then come back and report. Thank you for participating. You can sit down now, guy.

No, the Constitution guaruntees the right to a Well Regulated Militia.

Not for every crackpot to own a gun.

Now that Scalia is FEEDING THE WORMS, we will get back to this very sensible interpretation that we followed from 1787 to 2008.

 

[JoeB131]

Since we live in the U.S., that's what he talks about. Do you think we should consider the history of gun laws in England or France?

Yes, I think if someone else is doing something, and they are getting FAR BETTER RESULTS than we are, we should really look at what they are doing.

They are composed of people, and business owners are people.

Uh, no. They are legal constructs, not people, specifically meant to protect them from laws that would otherwise apply to people.

 

[defcon4]

No, the Constitution guaruntees the right to a Well Regulated Militia.

Not for every crackpot to own a gun.

Now that Scalia is FEEDING THE WORMS, we will get back to this very sensible interpretation that we followed from 1787 to 2008.

Uh...guy... what happened to the "Western World" comparison? You think you are the best spinmeister, don't you? Job, go back and sit around in the whale's belly.

 

[bripat9643]

Uh..guy, you got it wrong again. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for the people. European (the rest of the Western World using your words) countries do not. Go back to Civics 101 then come back and report. Thank you for participating. You can sit down now, guy.

No, the Constitution guaruntees the right to a Well Regulated Militia.

Not for every crackpot to own a gun.

Now that Scalia is FEEDING THE WORMS, we will get back to this very sensible interpretation that we followed from 1787 to 2008.

"The right to a well regulated militia" is an oxymoron. It's like saying people have the right to be regulated by the EPA. In other words, it's no right at all.

That's the kind of idiocy it takes to believe the 2nd amendment allows the government to place restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[bripat9643]

Since we live in the U.S., that's what he talks about. Do you think we should consider the history of gun laws in England or France?

Yes, I think if someone else is doing something, and they are getting FAR BETTER RESULTS than we are, we should really look at what they are doing.

The Nazis had similar laws. Do you think we should look at their results?

We have a Constitution, so their laws are irrelevant.

They are composed of people, and business owners are people.

Uh, no. They are legal constructs, not people, specifically meant to protect them from laws that would otherwise apply to people.

I said "they are composed of people." All those people have rights. Therefore the corporation has rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh...guy... what happened to the "Western World" comparison? You think you are the best spinmeister, don't you? Job, go back and sit around in the whale's belly.

Again, if you can't follow an argument, Corky, you really shouldn't try.

That's the kind of idiocy it takes to believe the 2nd amendment allows the government to place restrictions on gun ownership.

Guy, since you don't think a schizophrenic with three murder convictions should be able to walk into a gun store any more than I do, you already agree there should be "restrictions' on gun ownership.

We just disagree on what those restrictions should be and how seriously they should be enforced.

 

[JoeB131]

The Nazis had similar laws. Do you think we should look at their results?

We have a Constitution, so their laws are irrelevant.

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

We have a constitution that is interpreted by people. Since one of the guys who made the wrong interpretations is now taking that long overdue and well-deserved dirt nap, we will finally get some sanity on that interpretation.

I said "they are composed of people." All those people have rights. Therefore the corporation has rights.

So by that logic, you have no problem with Nissan or THyssen-Krupp (foreign owned corporations) dumping tons of money into our political system, because they are "made up of people"? That's fucking nuts.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Being a white male property owner rocks. Not Ashamed!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

THe second amendment clearly says:
In order to maintain a white militia (to protect our women from negros), the right of white people to bear arms shall not be infringed. I read that and that is what it says. The first amendment clearly says the right of white people to peacefully assemble...everyone else can fuck themselves...the first lines of the constitution says we, the glorious Caucasian race, come together and form a more white nation. The whitest nation on the face of the earth.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The Nazis had similar laws. Do you think we should look at their results?

We have a Constitution, so their laws are irrelevant.

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

We have a constitution that is interpreted by people. Since one of the guys who made the wrong interpretations is now taking that long overdue and well-deserved dirt nap, we will finally get some sanity on that interpretation.

I said "they are composed of people." All those people have rights. Therefore the corporation has rights.

So by that logic, you have no problem with Nissan or THyssen-Krupp (foreign owned corporations) dumping tons of money into our political system, because they are "made up of people"? That's fucking nuts.

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

This is a flat our lie that you made up on the spot and you know it to.

 

[defcon4]

Again, if you can't follow an argument, Corky, you really shouldn't try.

Uh...guy.. is this a modus operandi for you to throw shit out on the street and when you are asked to clean it up you deflect? Now, Job go back and sit in the belly of the whale....

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

This is a flat our lie that you made up on the spot and you know it to.

Um no, guy, this is information I found that was deviously hidden from you in something called "Books".


Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

...s. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

This is a flat our lie that you made up on the spot and you know it to.

Um no, guy, this is information I found that was deviously hidden from you in something called "Books".


Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

...s. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.

You found that in a book? I'm sure the DNC is producing pop-ups for people like you.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Uh, no, the Nazis didn't have similar laws. The Nazis in fact repealed most of the gun laws that had been put into place by the Weimar Republic.

This is a flat our lie that you made up on the spot and you know it to.

Um no, guy, this is information I found that was deviously hidden from you in something called "Books".


Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

...s. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.

German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized.

This could be true but it only validates the argument that the purpose of having an armed populace is to ensure that governments can't take away the rights of the people. Why do you think NAZIs disarmed Jews only? Was it to make it easier to put them into concentration camps?