In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
Answer the question.
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
Answer the question.
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
Answer the question.
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.
Your obsession with Russia is just weird, man. Take Babushka’s dick out of your mouth.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
It's a fucking song you pussy.
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.
TYBFHS
He doesn't like the glory so I'll take it instead. You are welcome.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
You should watch it. If Democrats can find more like that, we? might be in trouble.
Yep. Haven't seen any poles but that clip alone is enough to think he can unseat the Zodiak Killer rather easily
He articulated a view in opposition to the constituent without condemning that person. That seems to be in short supply in the SJW ranks right now.
The reasonable people disagreeing was a nice thing to say and very smart for a politician. The problem with the (not) anthem protests is the arguments for it being disrespectful sometimes came out like this “THEY are disrespecting MY country”. That’s racism. So yeah really nice but racism is deserving of being condemned.
This is where it gets problematic for me. I haven’t heard a good argument for it being disrespectful. If you hold a position that you can’t make a good argument for and there are people making arguments for your position that are blatantly racist, how is anyone on the other side supposed to tell the difference?
It would nice if the “SJW”s wouldn’t condemn everyone but it would also be nice if the other side stopped coming down on the same side as racists every single time.
And this is where I will have to break with you on this. Yes, some of the "disrespect" side are coming at this because of race. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
But my dad was a Marine and raised me my entire life to respect the flag/anthem/pledge etc because of all the men and women who gave their lives to protect it and what it stands for. He has of course stopped watching the NFL over this issue and I can 100% guarantee his stance would be the same if the players taking a knee were white people protesting Obama and affirmative action.
There is a (fairly large) segment of the population where you don't fuck with the flag, period. Considering they put their lives on the line to protect the flag and what it represents, and lost plenty of fellow soldiers who were doing the same, I think it's reasonable for them to be heated about this and take it as disrespectful to those who have fallen. And I don't think it necessarily makes them racist to feel that way, even though racists definitely do feel the same way.
TYDFHS
Does the flag represent freedom or blind patriotism?
Ugh. The density of the liberal faction never ceases to amaze here. It’s about the flag. It represents our freedoms which the military is sworn to defend. Both of them.
This debate is so fucking tired. If the kneelers actually gave a shit about why they are being told to kneel by their overlords, they would do something other than attempt to make a spectacle during the National Anthem. They would engage community leaders to make them accountable for whatever injustices they fell are occurring in their community.
But guess what, most of them don’t do that. They just showboat for their Twitter followers to show how #woke they are.
To me this “protest” is akin to a teenage Kid waiting to pitch a fit about not getting their way once the whole neighborhood, friends and family are at the BBQ. It’s not going to gain you any ground with anyone. It’s just an attempt to embarrass their parents. Where as if they had a mature conversation with their parents before anybody came over, they might gain some ground for their cause.
I don’t disrespect the kneelers just because of the issues I’ve covered in earlier posts. I also disrespect them because they don’t have the intelligence nor balls to try to gain ground for their cause productively.
So I’ll mark you down in the blind patriotism column. TYFYS
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
It's a fucking song you pussy.
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?
I don't, but guessing it's something metaphorical about protecting a flag.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
Your answer betrays your fundamental lack of knowledge about our country's beloved and rightly revered constitution.
The answer to the my test is the incorporation doctrine, which you can read about here:
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
We don't need to be constitutional lawyers to understand this stuff. It's basic civics. It's basic American history. Both are subjects you portray yourself to be an expert in. States used to have established religions, because everyone who could read English knew that the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion applied only to Congress:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Come on. Be curious about history of the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You boast that you care about the Second Amendment. Have you ever considered or educated yourself on the question why the first contemporary case, District of Columbia v. Heller, involved a federal district and not a state? Did you even read about the case that followed, McDonald v. Chicago? Here's what Wikipedia says:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
You lack basic knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.
You lack basic knowledge of your beloved Second Amendment.
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
Steering back to the topic at hand. Your side's goal, you being the so called 'democratic socialists, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. Repealing the 2nd amendment gives Congress the ability to pass laws banning guns. But there are state constitutions that have their own amendments protecting the right to bear arms. Those states that don't have such protections are now free to ban guns in the event that the 2nd amendment is repealed. For the states that have gun law protections in their constitutions, those protections are now effectively voided if Congress decides to pass laws banning guns, because federal law supersedes state law.
Your end game is to ban guns.
You're a follower of an ideology that is Marxist, fascist and racist at the same time.
I'm going to uncover and expose every facet of your movement that betrays its real intentions.
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
Steering back to the topic at hand. Your side's goal, you being the so called 'democratic socialists, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. Repealing the 2nd amendment gives Congress the ability to pass laws banning guns. But there are state constitutions that have their own amendments protecting the right to bear arms. Those states that don't have such protections are now free to ban guns in the event that the 2nd amendment is repealed. For the states that have gun law protections in their constitutions, those protections are now effectively voided if Congress decides to pass laws banning guns, because federal law supersedes state law.
Your end game is to ban guns.
You're a follower of an ideology that is Marxist, fascist and racist at the same time.
I'm going to uncover and expose every facet of your movement that betrays its real intentions.
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
Steering back to the topic at hand. Your side's goal, you being the so called 'democratic socialists, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. Repealing the 2nd amendment gives Congress the ability to pass laws banning guns. But there are state constitutions that have their own amendments protecting the right to bear arms. Those states that don't have such protections are now free to ban guns in the event that the 2nd amendment is repealed. For the states that have gun law protections in their constitutions, those protections are now effectively voided if Congress decides to pass laws banning guns, because federal law supersedes state law.
Your end game is to ban guns.
You're a follower of an ideology that is Marxist, fascist and racist at the same time.
I'm going to uncover and expose every facet of your movement that betrays its real intentions.
1. I didn't watch the video. 2. I don't know who this guy is. 3. I don't care about 1. or 2. 4. I'm brilliant, handsome and fucking successful af. 5. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes would beat the ever loving shit out of the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers; I know this now because @Mosster47 said they couldn't. 7. I put people in my inner and extended social circles into two camps: those who understand civil protest, and those who do not. 8. Categorically, and w/o exception, every single person, EVERY - SINGLE - ONE, in the second group, range from not super smart to really fucking stupid. Tribal (hi @Swaye ), yes. Smart. No. I like them, I look out for them and I want them to be ok. But I know they're stupid, and that they probably can't help it.
@salemcoog , I still love you man. We still kewg homies, now & forever. And I know we've been doing so well; but today we may have to have our first love spat in months.
Comments
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.
The answer to the my test is the incorporation doctrine, which you can read about here:
We don't need to be constitutional lawyers to understand this stuff. It's basic civics. It's basic American history. Both are subjects you portray yourself to be an expert in. States used to have established religions, because everyone who could read English knew that the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion applied only to Congress:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Come on. Be curious about history of the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You boast that you care about the Second Amendment. Have you ever considered or educated yourself on the question why the first contemporary case, District of Columbia v. Heller, involved a federal district and not a state? Did you even read about the case that followed, McDonald v. Chicago? Here's what Wikipedia says:
You lack basic knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.
You lack basic knowledge of your beloved Second Amendment.
You lack basic knowledge of American history.
You're a fraud.
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
Steering back to the topic at hand. Your side's goal, you being the so called 'democratic socialists, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. Repealing the 2nd amendment gives Congress the ability to pass laws banning guns. But there are state constitutions that have their own amendments protecting the right to bear arms. Those states that don't have such protections are now free to ban guns in the event that the 2nd amendment is repealed. For the states that have gun law protections in their constitutions, those protections are now effectively voided if Congress decides to pass laws banning guns, because federal law supersedes state law.
Your end game is to ban guns.
You're a follower of an ideology that is Marxist, fascist and racist at the same time.
I'm going to uncover and expose every facet of your movement that betrays its real intentions.
You're the challenger, I'm the prize fighter.
twoseven things:1. I didn't watch the video.
2. I don't know who this guy is.
3. I don't care about 1. or 2.
4. I'm brilliant, handsome and fucking successful af.
5. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes would beat the ever loving shit out of the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers; I know this now because @Mosster47 said they couldn't.
7. I put people in my inner and extended social circles into two camps: those who understand civil protest, and those who do not.
8. Categorically, and w/o exception, every single person, EVERY - SINGLE - ONE, in the second group, range from not super smart to really fucking stupid. Tribal (hi @Swaye ), yes. Smart. No. I like them, I look out for them and I want them to be ok. But I know they're stupid, and that they probably can't help it.
@salemcoog , I still love you man. We still kewg homies, now & forever. And I know we've been doing so well; but today we may have to have our first love spat in months.
Sad. Sad, really.