Informed Opinion

United States

#41 Feb 2, 2013
shoop wrote:
This is a hypothetical situation.

You find yourself alone on a uninhabited,unknown,ungoverned island.

A bad person lands and has tried to kill you.
Do you have a right to kill this person?
From where does this right arise?
I think you do.

My position would be that God created us with the innate need for self-preservation.

Of course, after the event the survivor could vote to pass a law authorizing such acts as he previously committed. There'd be no opposition vote. Heck- he could even hold a trial.
Informed Opinion

United States

#42 Feb 2, 2013
Zoltar wrote:
<quoted text>If that person is a beautiful woman, I would first try to reason with her in hopes that together we could form a more perfect union er uh, government.

If I failed to convince her, I would then hit her over the head with a coconut, purely in sefl defense. I would then move to ban all coconuts even though coconuts don't kille people.
Great post. But, if there were just the two of us my definition of beautiful would be pretty elastic.
Zoltar

Cleveland, GA

#43 Feb 2, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post. But, if there were just the two of us my definition of beautiful would be pretty elastic.
Very true!! I don't use that LOL thing but, you did cause me to laught out loud. Thanks!
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

#44 Feb 2, 2013
shoop wrote:
This is a hypothetical situation.
You find yourself alone on a uninhabited,unknown,ungoverned island.
A bad person lands and has tried to kill you.
Do you have a right to kill this person?
From where does this right arise?
This is easy. If you are a conservative you take matters into your own hands and take out the trash. If you are a Liberal, you try and find a Conservative to do it for you and then condemn him after he has done so.
Yup

Blairsville, GA

#45 Feb 2, 2013
Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>This is easy. If you are a conservative you take matters into your own hands and take out the trash. If you are a Liberal, you try and find a Conservative to do it for you and then condemn him after he has done so.
Remember republicans are great at starting wars that democrats end up fighting.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#46 Feb 2, 2013
Yup wrote:
<quoted text>Remember republicans are great at starting wars that democrats end up fighting.
And paying for.
Dumb Liberals

Dawsonville, GA

#47 Feb 2, 2013
Yup wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember republicans are great at starting wars that democrats end up fighting.
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
And paying for.
Wilson, world war I, a Democrat got us in war
Roosevelt, world war II, a democrat got us in war.
Truman, Korean are, a democrat got us in war.
Johnson, Vietnam, a democrat got us in war.
Bush I, Gulf war I, a republican got us in war.
Bush II, Gulf war II, a republican got us in war.


Typical liberal selective memory. Typical liberal selective memory that causes diarrhea of the mouth.


UC VOTER

Dawsonville, GA

#48 Feb 2, 2013
Dumb Liberals wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wilson, world war I, a Democrat got us in war
Roosevelt, world war II, a democrat got us in war.
Truman, Korean are, a democrat got us in war.
Johnson, Vietnam, a democrat got us in war.
Bush I, Gulf war I, a republican got us in war.
Bush II, Gulf war II, a republican got us in war.
Typical liberal selective memory. Typical liberal selective memory that causes diarrhea of the mouth.
I'll drink to that!
These liberal SOBs mainline narcissism.
UC VOTER

Dawsonville, GA

#49 Feb 2, 2013
300 million guns. 100 million owners. Roughly. A third of the nation owns guns. And the Constitution did not admit a natural right to them for the purposes of shooting bunnies and squirrels. It is for the more stringent task of shooting tyrants, wherever they raise their heads. That's the whole point.
Dangerous times. This bastard, Obama, reeks of Huey Long and Hugo Chavez. I smell the sulphur.
froggy

Toccoa, GA

#50 Feb 2, 2013
UC VOTER wrote:
300 million guns. 100 million owners. Roughly. A third of the nation owns guns. And the Constitution did not admit a natural right to them for the purposes of shooting bunnies and squirrels. It is for the more stringent task of shooting tyrants, wherever they raise their heads. That's the whole point.
Dangerous times. This bastard, Obama, reeks of Huey Long and Hugo Chavez. I smell the sulphur.
And Obama's drones will take out your sorry,lazy ass. Who needs your little puny weapons? And would you shoot against your own military? Have another drink loud mouth.
DumbLiberals

Dawsonville, GA

#51 Feb 2, 2013
Yup wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember republicans are great at starting wars that democrats end up fighting.
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
And paying for.
Typical Liberal selective memory loss.
Typical Liberal selective memory loss that causes diarrhea of the mouth.

Wilson, world war I, a Democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 53,402
Roosevelt, world war II, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 291,557
Truman, Korean are, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 33,686
Johnson, Vietnam, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 47,424
Bush I, Gulf war , a republican got us in war. Combat deaths 113
Bush II, Afghanistan and Iraq, a republican got us in war. Combat deaths 4,977

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_mi...

DumbLiberals

Dawsonville, GA

#52 Feb 2, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
Amendment II
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.
Here's the rub:
When the Constitution was drafted, the States/Colonies did not have standing armies, instead each Colony had a militia, which was simply average citizens who owned their their own arms, and who would respond and defend the State/Colony when it's security was threatened under the control of the State/Colony government.
The Constitution therefore unequivocally links a person's right to keep and bear arms directly to that person's obligation to participate in the militia.
Any other reading renders the language "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", which is 50% of the entire Amendment, meaningless. Any lawyer would tell you that interpretation would conflict with all rules of interpretation for statutes and laws.
As a result - no militia - no right to keep and bear arms.
Anyway,a a lifetime NRA member, I like the right to keep and bear arms interpreted liberally, so I keep my AR-15, Glock 40 cal., SPAS 12, Remington 700, etc., but is it the result of the Constitution, or simply pure political power ?

Another Liberal with another selective memory loss and diarrhea of the mouth.


he Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

#53 Feb 2, 2013
DumbLiberals wrote:
<quoted text>Informed Opinion wrote, "<quoted text>
And paying for. "

Typical Liberal selective memory loss.
Typical Liberal selective memory loss that causes diarrhea of the mouth.

Wilson, world war I, a Democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 53,402
Roosevelt, world war II, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 291,557
Truman, Korean are, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 33,686
Johnson, Vietnam, a democrat got us in war. Combat deaths 47,424
Bush I, Gulf war , a republican got us in war. Combat deaths 113
Bush II, Afghanistan and Iraq, a republican got us in war. Combat deaths 4,977

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_mi...
Seems to me we paid for WW I and WW II and Korea.

Good point on Vietnam, both Johnson and Nixon failed to pay for that war.

Seems we didn't pay for Vietnam, or even budget or pretend to pay for Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

So tell us which wars since Vietnam Democrats started and failed to pay for.

As to starting wars, you are right on Vietnam, otherwise, we are talking wars of choice, not wars of necessity. If you consider Roosevelt wrong for defending America and saving the free world after Pearl Harbor - we can disagree agreeably.

By the way, when your country has started so many wars in the last 15 years you have to list them by name to research which, if any, were paid for, is that a clue maybe your starting too many wars.

Small wonder the rest of the world considers America the greatest threat to peace on the globe.
uct

Blue Ridge, GA

#54 Feb 2, 2013
Back to the topic Take a look. A little long ,but to the point. Athens,Tn is not far away The Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 - YouTube http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-...
Unofficial Opinion

Dawsonville, GA

#55 Feb 2, 2013
uct wrote:
Back to the topic Take a look. A little long ,but to the point. Athens,Tn is not far away The Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 - YouTube http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-...

I believe that Sheriff was Informed Opinions grand-daddy.
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

#57 Feb 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, being aware of history is very important to many discussions.

For example, in Colonial America (when America was a group of colonies) Slavery was legal and already imposed on society. As the article demonstrates the duty of militias in many states was to protect the slave holder by controlling the slave population.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm
...The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
Great post.

The Confederate Government, in the name of protecting "freedom" from Northern oppression, engaged in oppression, confiscation, and stamping down freedoms far in excess of that which the Northern Government ever engaged.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#58 Feb 3, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
The Confederate Government, in the name of protecting "freedom" from Northern oppression, engaged in oppression, confiscation, and stamping down freedoms far in excess of that which the Northern Government ever engaged.
Boring as usual.

NG Krow

Carnesville, GA

#59 Feb 3, 2013
It has always been my understanding that the "Bill of Rights" was nonnegotiable and imparted to everyone at birth.

These are the basic rights necessary to remain free from tyrants and the encroachment of others into our personal lives.

It is not about fighting the government but preventing the need to fight the government. It is not about shooting anyone in self defense but about letting criminals know they very well may be shot if they invade personal space/property .
Informed Opinion

Alva, FL

#60 Feb 3, 2013
DumbLiberals wrote:
<quoted text>Another Liberal with another selective memory loss and diarrhea of the mouth.


he Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...
Well, thank God that's settled.

So must the right to unimpeded access to abortion.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (more)
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159

So we gun owners must support the right to abortion too. Anything else would be so hypocritical as to be laughable.

But see:

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (more)
16 S. Ct. 1138; 41 L. Ed. 256; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 3390
oops ..... The Supremes say they were wrong.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180

and

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (more)
110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371
oops .... The Supremes later say they were wrong -
Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876

Damn... My corporation is a person, I hope it doesn't file it's own dissolution action.

District of Columbia v. Heller overturned prior decisions that held the opposite. So when were the Supremes right, when they ruled the opposite before, or when they ruled on Heller ?

The current 9 political appointees repeatedly decide the previous 9 political employees were completely wrong.

AMENDMENT II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state",.....

What do those those words mean ?

Why are they there ?
DumbLiberals

Dawsonville, GA

#63 Feb 3, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, thank God that's settled.
So must the right to unimpeded access to abortion.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (more)
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
So we gun owners must support the right to abortion too. Anything else would be so hypocritical as to be laughable.
But see:
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (more)
16 S. Ct. 1138; 41 L. Ed. 256; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 3390
oops ..... The Supremes say they were wrong.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
and
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (more)
110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371
oops .... The Supremes later say they were wrong -
Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876
Damn... My corporation is a person, I hope it doesn't file it's own dissolution action.
District of Columbia v. Heller overturned prior decisions that held the opposite. So when were the Supremes right, when they ruled the opposite before, or when they ruled on Heller ?
The current 9 political appointees repeatedly decide the previous 9 political employees were completely wrong.
AMENDMENT II
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state",.....
What do those those words mean ?
Why are they there ?

If you don't know the difference between taking away as opposed to allowing, and the repercussions that can result; then you are as naive as your posts show you to be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blairsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What do you buy a Floridiot for Christmas? 9 min redimix 16
Restaurants open on Christmas Day 11 min redimix 4
dish network 1 hr Yea 30
Scott Stephens was FIRED from the sheriff's off... (Sep '08) 20 hr redimix 38
Loonie Liberals 21 hr dixie ranger 74
Christmas Wed Broke 4
DAKOTA SHERWOOD involved in DOLLAR STORE ROBBERY Wed Night Rider 13

Blairsville News Video

Blairsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Blairsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Blairsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Blairsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:22 am PST

NBC Sports 8:22AM
Falcons cut LB James Anderson on Christmas Eve
NBC Sports12:22 PM
Gano eager for another chance vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
NBC Sports12:22 PM
Gano eager for another chance vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports 2:59 PM
Falcons QB Matt Ryan pushing to win for coach Mike Smith
NBC Sports 4:53 AM
Panthers coach and family replaced gifts for break-in victims