Bush's Reaction To The Virginia Tech Shootings

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i'm 51 and studied law long before you. the first 10 ammendments are inalienable rights and cannot be changed or modified. i still challenge you to prove me wrong. my trial history is quite impressive. have you won any cases yet?

Oh my god ... you've said some dumb shit before, but this really takes the cake. Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Specifically, Article 5, which clearly spells out how to amend anything in the Constitution?

C'mon Perry Mason ... quote me the line about "inalienable rights" in the Bill of Rights. Let's see it. :rolleyes:

norm

hippiemom wrote:

Oh my god ... you've said some dumb shit before, but this really takes the cake. Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Specifically, Article 5, which clearly spells out how to amend anything in the Constitution?

C'mon Perry Mason ... quote me the line about "inalienable rights" in the Bill of Rights. Let's see it. :rolleyes:

perry mason.............:D:D...........here's the The Declaration of Independence which does have the magic word....;)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.................:)

hippiemom

cutback wrote:

perry mason.............:D:D...........here's the The Declaration of Independence which does have the magic word....;)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.................:)

Why thank you, cutback! And now to complete our 6th grade civics lesson, I bring you Article V of the Constitution of the United States:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Now let's sit back and see what our medical miracle/former rock star/cattle rancher/curer of cancer/vigilante justice machine/ace trial attorney can make out of all this.

norm

hippiemom wrote:

Why thank you, cutback! And now to complete our 6th grade civics lesson, I bring you Article V of the Constitution of the United States:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Now let's sit back and see what our former rock star/cattle rancher/curer of cancer/vigilante justice machine/ace trial attorney can make out of all this.

you really crack me up.............:D:D

Byrnzie

onelongsong wrote:

it's throwing water on the crap they will spew about gun control. if you don't like the american constitution; move to a country with laws you agree with.

Love it, or leave it, right? Regardless of what the consequences are, or of how corrupt any particular Government may be, we should all just be obedient, servile sheep and accept whatever we're told to accept, right? Sentiments such as yours were responsible for the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930's. Well done!

69charger

dkst0426 wrote:

Don't bring logic into this. What're you thinking, man?

Pretty impressive use of selective retention to use this to find yet another reason to criticize President Bush. Oh wait, I forgot--the man can do no right at all. Silly me.

Um. I'm not bashing him. I don't know where you read into that.

Byrnzie

mammasan wrote:

I agree. You know both sides of the issue will use this to try to strengthen their position, which I find disgusting. The senseless death fo so mant people should never be used as a political tool.

So you think that inaction, and silence on this issue is the way to proceed?

soulsinging

hippiemom wrote:

Oh my god ... you've said some dumb shit before, but this really takes the cake. Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Specifically, Article 5, which clearly spells out how to amend anything in the Constitution?

C'mon Perry Mason ... quote me the line about "inalienable rights" in the Bill of Rights. Let's see it. :rolleyes:

he can't. ive been asking repeatedly. he just keeps saying to read it. then he points me to a dictionary that says the first 10 amendments are collectively known as inalienable rights, with absolutely no authority that they cannot be amended aside from his personal interpretation of black's law dictionary (which carries a LOT of weight with scotus, of course) as making those 10 amendments impervious to amendment.

soulsinging

hippiemom wrote:

Why thank you, cutback! And now to complete our 6th grade civics lesson, I bring you Article V of the Constitution of the United States:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Now let's sit back and see what our medical miracle/former rock star/cattle rancher/curer of cancer/vigilante justice machine/ace trial attorney can make out of all this.

you do have to admit, he's got one bad ass resume. maybe he's ted nugent?

norm

soulsinging wrote:

you do have to admit, he's got one bad ass resume. maybe he's ted nugent?

onelongsong is much more intelligent that ted............

hippiemom

soulsinging wrote:

you do have to admit, he's got one bad ass resume. maybe he's ted nugent?

:eek:

69charger

soulsinging wrote:

you do have to admit, he's got one bad ass resume. maybe he's ted nugent?

I challenge anyone on this board to debate Ted Nugent on anything. He is well informed on many subjects. You would lose.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

you do have to admit, he's got one bad ass resume. maybe he's ted nugent?

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/guinea/489/tedbuff.jpg

hippiemom

69charger wrote:

I challenge anyone on this board to debate Ted Nugent on anything. He is well informed on many subjects. You would lose.

Well then, onelongsong definitely ain't him, because we're winning decisively.

Byrnzie

onelongsong wrote:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"

Why would anyone quote the Nazis in order to support their viewpoint? What is your point here exactly?

soulsinging

69charger wrote:

I challenge anyone on this board to debate Ted Nugent on anything. He is well informed on many subjects. You would lose.

ive no doubt he is. ive also no doubt i could take him.

69charger

soulsinging wrote:

ive no doubt he is. ive also no doubt i could take him.

Lots of luck.

http://www.tnugent.com/hunting/forums/

He's on there all the time.

hippiemom

69charger wrote:

Lots of luck.

http://www.tnugent.com/hunting/forums/

He's on there all the time.

Is it just about hunting? I'm not going to register for that, but if they discuss other topics it could be entertaining.

69charger

hippiemom wrote:

Is it just about hunting? I'm not going to register for that, but if they discuss other topics it could be entertaining.

All topics.

hippiemom

69charger wrote:

All topics.

Haha ... you have to PAY? I doubt it's $20 worth of entertaining.