Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#243 Jan 29, 2013
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
So is healthcare but it never stops you or know it alls like reader from giving your two cents.
I doubt you'll find a single post that I have written on that subject.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#244 Jan 29, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The court made up judicial review, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the courts can do this, the courts powers were not defined.
Well, its been that way for well over two centuries, and the entirety of the institutions our nation relies on seem to depend upon judicial review continuing on in perpetuity.

I suppose you could try to reverse Marbury. Let me know how that goes.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#245 Jan 29, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you are wrong. If you want to spin, go chase your tail.
So that's not what you meant when you wrote this about prisoners?
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Oh goodie, then they just get to live on my dime.
woof

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#246 Jan 29, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
So, essentially, you are an anarchist.
woof
No, he's a "less-archist"

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#247 Jan 29, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
So to you, there can be absolutely no gun laws at all. Fair enough.
Sure there can be. "Don't use a gun to commit a crime."

But I'm pretty sure criminals will ignore that one too.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#248 Jan 29, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you insist on the right to arms, citing Constitutionality.
No. The right is already mine, existing before the constitution was ever dreamed of. What I insist on is that government honor and protect it, as they promised. The Constitution does not create the right. It only affirms it and says the government will not infringe upon it.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#249 Jan 29, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he's a "less-archist"
"minarchist"

(not a minarchist)

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#250 Jan 30, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The right is already mine, existing before the constitution was ever dreamed of. What I insist on is that government honor and protect it, as they promised. The Constitution does not create the right. It only affirms it and says the government will not infringe upon it.
So, you are a natural law advocate?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#251 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are a natural law advocate?
I think anyone should be able to do as he pleases (and is within his capabilities) as long as he does not harm another. Within those boundaries, yes, I believe that the strong and smart should thrive and the weak and stupid should not.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#252 Jan 30, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think anyone should be able to do as he pleases (and is within his capabilities) as long as he does not harm another. Within those boundaries, yes, I believe that the strong and smart should thrive and the weak and stupid should not.
And who determines what is within the capabilities of another?

Can harm prevention be legislated?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#253 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
And who determines what is within the capabilities of another?
Can harm prevention be legislated?
The courts, mainly

The criminal justice system is meant to exist to control those who are too dangerous to be allowed to exist in society.

Now we have decided to make it into a social work agency as well, which is in effect the legislation of harm prevention.

Is it a good idea?

I don't think so.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#254 Jan 30, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts, mainly
The criminal justice system is meant to exist to control those who are too dangerous to be allowed to exist in society.
Now we have decided to make it into a social work agency as well, which is in effect the legislation of harm prevention.
Is it a good idea?
I don't think so.
Well, K, jumping into the middle of a conversation, as you typically do, you are making a confusing mess.

Are you also a natural law advocate, like Tony?

However, the criminal justice system cannot function without a system of laws, which means that someone needs to spell out those things which are too dangerous in society.

But, in addition, we have the protections of the Constitution, so that, for instance, the government cannot just go on a hunt for meth labs by checking out every house on a block by block basis.

And because the application of those protections to multiple instances--not to mention the balancing of protections when they appear to be in conflict--is neither simple, nor do all citizens agree, we have the ultimate role of the Supreme Court.

Now--if Tony is truly a natural law adherent, he rejects all of that in favor of an every man for himself determination of what is acceptable, not dangerous and not likely to have an impact on others.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#255 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, K, jumping into the middle of a conversation, as you typically do, you are making a confusing mess.
Are you also a natural law advocate, like Tony?
However, the criminal justice system cannot function without a system of laws, which means that someone needs to spell out those things which are too dangerous in society.
But, in addition, we have the protections of the Constitution, so that, for instance, the government cannot just go on a hunt for meth labs by checking out every house on a block by block basis.
And because the application of those protections to multiple instances--not to mention the balancing of protections when they appear to be in conflict--is neither simple, nor do all citizens agree, we have the ultimate role of the Supreme Court.
Now--if Tony is truly a natural law adherent, he rejects all of that in favor of an every man for himself determination of what is acceptable, not dangerous and not likely to have an impact on others.
A. This isn't a PM, why are you whining that I am contributing to discussion?

B. You seem to be confusing "Natural Law" with "Law of the Jungle"

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#256 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, K, jumping into the middle of a conversation, as you typically do, you are making a confusing mess.
Are you also a natural law advocate, like Tony?
However, the criminal justice system cannot function without a system of laws, which means that someone needs to spell out those things which are too dangerous in society.
But, in addition, we have the protections of the Constitution, so that, for instance, the government cannot just go on a hunt for meth labs by checking out every house on a block by block basis.
And because the application of those protections to multiple instances--not to mention the balancing of protections when they appear to be in conflict--is neither simple, nor do all citizens agree, we have the ultimate role of the Supreme Court.
Now--if Tony is truly a natural law adherent, he rejects all of that in favor of an every man for himself determination of what is acceptable, not dangerous and not likely to have an impact on others.
You mean meth lab operators don't have to register?
But...criminal gunowners will?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#257 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean meth lab operators don't have to register?
But...criminal gunowners will?
Drugs will make you dependent on the state, guns will free you from it.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#258 Jan 30, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think anyone should be able to do as he pleases (and is within his capabilities) as long as he does not harm another. Within those boundaries, yes, I believe that the strong and smart should thrive and the weak and stupid should not.
Sounds like anarchy to me. By your logic the street thugs and organized gangsters would be the strongest and smartest. But for the police and military, squares like you wouldn't make it in a 'natural law' real life day to day experience.

The survival of the fittest, right? You don't really want to live in a society like that, trust me! The ONLY reason white like yourself were able to make it this far is the laws against the arming of freed slaves, and the police and court system that protect you and your community.

So when I hear about you white men crying about some 2nd amendment BS, I know it's bunk, because most of you would've defend urban blacks gun rights if they had felonies or not. You and your ilk are only concerned with your individual rights as white males in the world. None of you would agree with 150 million black men and women having AR-15's and AK-47's, like the BBP, Malcolm X, US Slaves, The BLA, and other groups (American Indians) wanted for self defense.

All of you who cry about your rights being taken is full of it. You have no ideal as a white male, what it means to have rights restricted or not given by a system by design. No one cares to hear your bull.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#259 Jan 30, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
A. This isn't a PM, why are you whining that I am contributing to discussion?
B. You seem to be confusing "Natural Law" with "Law of the Jungle"
Well, most intelligent posters pay attention to what someone is responding to before jumping in to disagree with them. Not saying that you can't do it--just makes you look dimwitted.

The confusion may be Tony's.

However, there are a number of people who post here claiming themselves to be strict Constitutionalists, or Natural Law proponents who are really just picking and choosing bits and pieces of one or the other to justify something that they want.

So--are you also claiming to be an adherent of Natural Law?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#260 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean meth lab operators don't have to register?
But...criminal gunowners will?
Ummmm, define "criminal gunowner."
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#261 Jan 30, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts, mainly
The criminal justice system is meant to exist to control those who are too dangerous to be allowed to exist in society.
Now we have decided to make it into a social work agency as well, which is in effect the legislation of harm prevention.
Is it a good idea?
I don't think so.
Wrong! The criminal Justice system was created in it's largess, to control and enforce statues and laws that were primarily enacted by state and county government for the sole purpose to keep freed blacks in their place. In other words, stay subservient to whites ,eventhough you're free to walk without chains, or we will by force with guns, lock you up or shoot you.

There's no mistaking why so many black males are prohibited by statue, contrary to the 2nd amendment, to carry, own, or even handle a firearm without being sent to prison for doing so. Not committing a crime, just having a firearm, even for home protection, is a 'violation' punishable with up to ten years in prison.

No where in the Constitution does it state that a convicted person is barred FOR LIFE, from owning a firearm! Yet, you sorry lame ass phoney patriots won't fight those statues that are clearly against the "right too bear arms", but you cry and bellyache about certain rifle restrictions! STFU, or stand for solid rights for everyone, as the constitution states!

And don't give me no BS about a Presidential or Governors pardon to get what's rightfully every free citizens right.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#262 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm, define "criminal gunowner."
Everyone knows that's a code word for black male with gun (BMG). Even the term 'criminal' is used to take people's rights away. For example, if a person owns a business, pays state, city, and federal taxes, has a mortgage, kids in college, owns a vehicle, is married, attends church weekly, served in jury duty,ect. but did something stupid in his youth. He has a record of violating some law. He cannot own a firearm, and in the eye's of the stupid and brainwashed, he is still labeled a 'criminal' for a crime he paid for 30 years ago!

This kind of thinking is what many blacks are faced with, millions of blacks and whites, across this country. They are still considered Criminals. And their 2nd amendment right is denied for life. None of these cowards on here will rally against that.

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2 magical days until Christmas 29 min Duke for Mayor 64
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 33 min Duke for Mayor 4,917
COPS lives MATTER 43 min Duke for Mayor 136
The Middle East 3 hr Pale Rider 38
Merry Christmas everybody 6 hr Duke for Mayor 17
Police ID man found fatally stabbed in North Si... 9 hr now hey 4
Joe Cocker is dead. 11 hr Duke for Mayor 47
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:56 am PST

ESPN10:56AM
Pettine: Manziel will get chance to compete
NBC Sports11:18 AM
Rookie Shaw excited about chance to start for Browns - NBC Sports
NFL11:45 AM
Injury roundup: A.J. Green misses Bengals practice
NBC Sports 1:46 PM
Mike Pettine: Our first-round picks aren't busts
Bleacher Report 2:15 AM
Should New England Patriots Rest Key Starters in Week 17?