Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-05-2010, 05:09 PM   #31
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.
is that what Spence does?
I thought it was spin, but sounds like that to me
Slipknot is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 05:23 PM   #32
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.
Yes, it is. While the scope of this Right is widely disputed (such as the assault rifle debates), it is my belief that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to own a firearm for personal protection and any overly intrusive regulations on that right, such as a handgun ban, is Unconstitutional.

As you said, Constitutional intent. In this case, the intent is clear.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 07-05-2010, 11:42 PM   #33
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
The right to bear arms is clear and articulate. The Constitutionality of abortion is not. I should have stated that it's application requires interpretation... never said anything about interpretations should be"based on personal whim, political orientation, views of 'social justice'".
You said "I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as unconstitutional." This implies a Constitutional lack of clarity because it promotes "interpretation" based on personal opinion. Actually, the right to bear arms, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the "right" to an abortion should not require wrenching, conflicting, "interpretation."

There is no restriction in the Constitution on the types of "arms" that a citizen has a right to bear.

Since there is no definition of what is cruel or unusual in the Constitution, such punishments are left to be determined by the people and their legislators in accordence with normative standards and practices.

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Again, this "right" should be reserved to State legislatures bringing the matter up to a vote of their citizens. There is, of course, a matter of a human right to life. Apparently, it is difficult to determine whether a human is alive, or even human, until it is separated from the umbilical cord. Even then, living, viable newborns that result from failed late term abortions are discarded into trash heaps, apparently not considered human or alive.
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-06-2010, 11:48 AM   #34
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Conflate: verb - To bring things together and fuse them into a single entity

"Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost"

Considering how you take any topic you may disagree with and somehow blend it in with progressives, socialism or Obama regardless of the topic's origin... seems pretty accurate.
confusion would be the key word....
what you "interpret" as conflation on my part is a result of your inability to recognize and/or understand simple concepts and facts that disagree with your shifting world view..much easier for you to "merge" or conflate them into a perceived single mode of dissenting argument and then dismiss all with some Glen Beck or Fox news reference as you have done here and elsewhere...while completely ignoring the actual point or points...works for you I guess.... I've been and try to be pretty clear on progressives, socialism(ists) and Obama and the war that they are engaged in against America, the Constitution and our private sector....no conflation is necessary and to ignore the ideaology being forced on Americans currently, it's sources and the detremental effects is to have your head in the sand.. it becomes clearer each day .....at least for most Americans...I just can't figure out which side you are on sometimes.....you are idealogically erratic and that may be the cause of your "confusion by your own conflation"....... don't blame me....

I will give you a little credit however, once in a while you provide a real gem...like...the right to bear arms is constitutionally correct...or however you stated it...now that is brilliant stuff......

of course, we do need to worry about Spence's citizens bearing nuclear missiles

Last edited by scottw; 07-06-2010 at 02:14 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 07-07-2010, 01:02 PM   #35
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?

The two appendages that hang from the shoulders and onto which the hands are attached.

Actually, it was clear that the framers meant weapons, including weapons of war. Though there were much larger weapons than various rifles and sidearms (cannons, gunboats, battleships, etc.,) there was no need to define what was protected as a right to own. If you could afford a battleship and had a place to keep it, it was your right. Now, local ordinances might interfere, not with your right to own an Abrams tank, but on what roads it would be allowed. If you can afford a hydrogen bomb and want to waste your money thusly, go for it. Again, there may be problems with hazardous material handling and storage. This nonsense that if you allow law abiding citizens to own nefarious and powerful weapons, chaos, anarchy, uncontrollabe mass murders and havoc will burst the seams of society is an insult to the people.


I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.

Not knowing what might be needed, it was probably better not to specify.

The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.

Wow! Halfway into George Washington's first term as POTUS and rights were already "shifting to the federal government"? I guess that's why the Fed. Gov. has been able to grab so much power from the People--it had a huge head start.

Actually, wasn't the Constitution and its first ammendments a prohibition AGAINST the Federal Government--Those pesky negative rights that Obama complains about?


If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...

For the most part, when "intent" is not clear, it is so due to a contending party trying to find a supposed lack of clarity and hidden intent so as to win an argument (approve Federal legislation, deny certain inalieanable rights, etc.) Arguing over whether a punishment is cruel or unusual (as if punishments are somehow other than cruel) in a Constitutional context is obviously and intentionally shadowy. There is obviously NO INTENT to specify. It is obviously left to the people to decide what is cruel and unusual. It should also be obvious that if it is so arguable as to cause such difficulty to decide, that the punishments are probably not cruel or unusual, but just distasteful to some, and a political tool for others.

I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.

-spence
Since there are 9 members, it cannot be mathematically balanced. What matters is not a balance between two opposing views (there can certainly be more than two, there could possibly be nine,) but that Constitutional decisions are made within the bounds of the Constitution, not by various penumbras and emanations that one might personally wish existed for what one feels is the betterment of society.
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com