I'm off te exercise my 2nd Amendment Right!

Posted in the Weird Forum

Comments (Page 35)

Showing posts 681 - 700 of1,061
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#819
Dec 10, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
If all 9 died or resigned the president would be within his constitutional duties to nominate 9 more. I give you the relevant portion of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full constitution completely annotated for your reading pleasure and still you canít grasp the meaning.
Where do you see 2? Article II or Section 2? Wow. Youíre amazing.
Why are there nine? Several reasons come to mind. First and odd number may have been chosen to prevent a tie. Second, the more justices there are the less likely a sitting president can achieve undue influence on the court. Since theyíre all lifetime appointments one would expect very little change during a sitting presidents two terms.
1789 6
1801 5
1802 6
1807 7
1837 9
1863 10
1866 7
1867 8
1869 9
Congress controls the number of justices. Congress has changed the number to prevent a sitting president to appoint justices, as in the case of Andrew Johnson. Recall Andrew Johnson was impeached.
I stated obama can appoint two per term..yes you are
correct if all died ..however I have a better chance of you being a human before that happens ,

so in a sense you are correct .... bet you and I will never see it

as in every rule there is always an exception...

“Are We Having Fun Yet???”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

If Not, Why Not!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#820
Dec 10, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and they would be screaming we must ban rocks.
Rocks, kitchen knives, gardening tools, on and on and on.....

“Are We Having Fun Yet???”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

If Not, Why Not!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#821
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldnít be in name of the almighty dollar in the case presented. The case at hand was Fort Hood. Read the story and decide how the almighty dollar was involved http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-officer-ki...
If someone breaks into my home, or yours. We have the legal right to use deadly force. Wouldnít you then in fact be playing the roles of judge and jury? Add to that executioner.
My post was also addressing a post that talked of letting someone die because it would cost the taxpayers money to keep him alive and take him to trial and house him in prison.

That is why I said someone would be police office, judge and jury by letting the person die instead of saving his life and doing what our laws are set up to do. Step by step thus including a judge and jury.

You have now changed up the whole situation by talking about a situation where you or I have to defend ourselves and anyone in our home against an intruder.

OK, lets work with that and take it back to what was being discussed before. The person breaks in and go into self defense mode and I shoot and the perp falls to the floor. I call 911 and while they are on the way I can chose to render aid to the person if I did not shoot to kill or my aim was not true due to whatever. I'm not a doctor but I do what I can and let's say my next door neighbor is and I call him to help till more help arrives. At that point we might save the persons life and now he will go into the system and then our taxes dollars are now back into the picture again.

“Are We Having Fun Yet???”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

If Not, Why Not!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#822
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally I donít bother with offbeat. Seldom is there a serious discussion. I believe the Second Amendment is worthy of serious discussion.
There's nothing wrong with having some fun. There's also a time for serious discussion.
And that is the very reason I am at Offbeat. I'm really not here for serious discussion and that is not what you usually get on a public forum.

Most people can't discuss politics without getting upset. I belong to some RW clubs where the topic is off limits.

Name calling, insults and people who would rather die than yield a point even when the facts are presented to them. That is what I see here at the threads that are supposed to be about serious discussion.

Funny, I can actually talk to people about the subject and not get upset but I mostly don't as so many others take it to heart. Some want to talk about it and they are mad within a few minutes.

Not saying you are that type. I just see way too much name calling no matter what the sujbect of the thread might be. Why a person feels that calling the other person an ugly name makes a good talking point I will never know.....

“WE WON TOPIX! YAY!”

Since: Jun 09

Hoffman Estates, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#823
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

I'm just curious as to why Dirty Doctor punked out. He started the thread. I guess he couldn't hang.
Genos Trolling

Mount Vernon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#825
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

38 Special wrote:
Shhhhh, it's bad enough Sam trolls 24/7, don't wake up Ducks R Us out of southern Oregon.
Ferrerman wrote:
I'm just curious as to why Dirty Doctor punked out. He started the thread. I guess he couldn't hang.
^^^ Fhags R Us ^^^

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#827
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of ability to pay. Very true. But, if a physician is simply nearby they are not required to intervene. Thatís what we were discussing in the Fort Hood scenario. Realty is you nor I know if there was a physician present.
It was stated it would have been better to simply not treat Hassanís injuries. I concur. Would that be moral? Probably not. Given his injuries a small delay probably would have been fatal. Even immediate response using the technology of even 30 years ago he probably wouldnít have survived.
Often laws and morality are not tied to each other. Just because something is immoral doesnít mean it should be illegal. And, back to your initial comment on this it certainly wouldnít be a violation of his due process rights.
I have read several accounts of the shooting including the injuries sustained by the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. All you have presented is supposition. No where, not in any article I read, was it indicated that Mr. Hasan was in eliminate danger of dying. In fact, he was handcuffed and transported to Scott & White hospital, a trauma center. At that point in time physicians are MANDATED to treat. In fact, I'd argue the minute the handcuffs went on there was a mandate to administer life saving procedures. Mr. Hasan is an AMERICAN and entitled to DUE PROCESS. Your lack of basic understanding of societal morality and medical ethics is stunning and troubling. The lack of morality and ethics is what it wrong with the country.

Your arguments are ridiculous and an exercise in misdirection... are you sure you're not Tally?

http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf
Great

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#828
Dec 10, 2012
 
The national guard needs you. Bring your musket

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#829
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

tallyho wrote:
nice to see the constitution is being upheld..

Two boys, ages 7 and 11, are accused of trying to rob a woman with a loaded gun, police said Sunday.

The boys tried to carjack a 22-year-old woman who was in her family's truck waiting for her parents in a church parking lot, Portland police said in a statement.
What does that have to do with the Constitution being upheld?

Two children that should have had adult supervision committed a crime with a gun they never should have had access to.

The parents are the ones that should be prosecuted.

Absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#830
Dec 11, 2012
 
Amendment II - Right to Bear Arms 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.

what is the age limit ....??????
Thats it

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#831
Dec 11, 2012
 
Glocks rule

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#832
Dec 11, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
I stated obama can appoint two per term..yes you are
correct if all died ..however I have a better chance of you being a human before that happens ,
so in a sense you are correct .... bet you and I will never see it
as in every rule there is always an exception...
Where does your two come from? What if three retire during his term? If none were to retire or die he would get to appoint none.

There is no limitation on the number of nominations. I give you the pertinent section of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full text of the US Constitution, the site is complete with legal annotations and you still are unable manage a factual statement.

Point directly to the source of your limitation. Bet you canít find it.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#833
Dec 11, 2012
 
Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Rocks, kitchen knives, gardening tools, on and on and on.....
Add to that list fists and other parts of the human body. So maybe we would have to ban humans which would indeed solve the problem.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#834
Dec 11, 2012
 
Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
My post was also addressing a post that talked of letting someone die because it would cost the taxpayers money to keep him alive and take him to trial and house him in prison.
That is why I said someone would be police office, judge and jury by letting the person die instead of saving his life and doing what our laws are set up to do. Step by step thus including a judge and jury.
You have now changed up the whole situation by talking about a situation where you or I have to defend ourselves and anyone in our home against an intruder.
OK, lets work with that and take it back to what was being discussed before. The person breaks in and go into self defense mode and I shoot and the perp falls to the floor. I call 911 and while they are on the way I can chose to render aid to the person if I did not shoot to kill or my aim was not true due to whatever. I'm not a doctor but I do what I can and let's say my next door neighbor is and I call him to help till more help arrives. At that point we might save the persons life and now he will go into the system and then our taxes dollars are now back into the picture again.
Yes, that someone was Hasan whom I used in my reply. Thatís who Prep-for-dep would allow to die. To refresh your memory hereís the post in full. Post 733 this thread.
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
We will see. Government decisions make no sense to me. The major that shot up the military base was shot and would have died if not given medical attention quickly. My thoughts at the time were, let the bastard die. Save the tax dollars. But, what did they do? Save his life at taxpayer expense. Continue medical care at taxpayer expense, house him at taxpayer expense. Try him at taxpayer expense. sentence him to death, at taxpayer expense. Incarcerate him in the meantime at taxpayer expense.
The major referred to is Major Nidal Hasan. They should have allowed him to perish.

I in no way changed the story. I added another scenario to illustrate how your judge and jury statement is flawed. The wisest and most logical thing you can do after shooting a home invader is make sure thereís not a second intruder. That search should last at least 10 minutes which in many cases would resolve your scenario.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read several accounts of the shooting including the injuries sustained by the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. All you have presented is supposition. No where, not in any article I read, was it indicated that Mr. Hasan was in eliminate danger of dying. In fact, he was handcuffed and transported to Scott & White hospital, a trauma center. At that point in time physicians are MANDATED to treat. In fact, I'd argue the minute the handcuffs went on there was a mandate to administer life saving procedures. Mr. Hasan is an AMERICAN and entitled to DUE PROCESS. Your lack of basic understanding of societal morality and medical ethics is stunning and troubling. The lack of morality and ethics is what it wrong with the country.
Your arguments are ridiculous and an exercise in misdirection... are you sure you're not Tally?
http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf
Hasan was initially in the intensive care unit of Brooke Army Medical Center. The fact they had him on a ventilator indicates he was unable to breathe on his own. His wounds included damage to the spine which will render him paralyzed from the waist down for life.

Where are you retrieving your ďfactsĒ?

Again, morality and legal isnít always compatible. I would have allowed him to die. You would defend the life of one who killed so many?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#836
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Thats it wrote:
Glocks rule
Nah, Iíll take a 1911 over a Glock any day.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#837
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read several accounts of the shooting including the injuries sustained by the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. All you have presented is supposition. No where, not in any article I read, was it indicated that Mr. Hasan was in eliminate danger of dying. In fact, he was handcuffed and transported to Scott & White hospital, a trauma center. At that point in time physicians are MANDATED to treat. In fact, I'd argue the minute the handcuffs went on there was a mandate to administer life saving procedures. Mr. Hasan is an AMERICAN and entitled to DUE PROCESS. Your lack of basic understanding of societal morality and medical ethics is stunning and troubling. The lack of morality and ethics is what it wrong with the country.
Your arguments are ridiculous and an exercise in misdirection... are you sure you're not Tally?
http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf
Of course once heís in the hospital treatment is required. I would have left him where he dropped for a while.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#838
Dec 11, 2012
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does your two come from? What if three retire during his term? If none were to retire or die he would get to appoint none.
There is no limitation on the number of nominations. I give you the pertinent section of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full text of the US Constitution, the site is complete with legal annotations and you still are unable manage a factual statement.
Point directly to the source of your limitation. Bet you canít find it.
the president can have an unlimited list of nominees and change the list on spot ......

but this president as of now can only get two nominees [for a justice if open] per term as stipulated by the congress
[ who has the final approval]

and it is the congress in body who ok the supreme court justice , not the president..

NOMINEE:
One who has been nominated to an office or for a candidacy.

APPOINTED:
the act of putting a person into a non-elective position; "the appointment had to be approved by the whole committee" designation,

nominated by the president , but approved by Congress , I know how much you want to be right , but the letter of the law prevails

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#839
Dec 11, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
the president can have an unlimited list of nominees and change the list on spot ......
but this president as of now can only get two nominees [for a justice if open] per term as stipulated by the congress
[ who has the final approval]
and it is the congress in body who ok the supreme court justice , not the president..
NOMINEE:
One who has been nominated to an office or for a candidacy.
APPOINTED:
the act of putting a person into a non-elective position; "the appointment had to be approved by the whole committee" designation,
nominated by the president , but approved by Congress , I know how much you want to be right , but the letter of the law prevails
Thatís not what you stated.
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
no there wasn't always nine
read : judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****
2 per term , per term so the president can really get 4 in total... so there for nine justices now

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#840
Dec 11, 2012
 
what ever you don't ever think that statement covers all.. because it would have said PRESIDENTS.... but I can see your blindness if you don't consider Obama as president...

stand a hard line ...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 681 - 700 of1,061
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••