quote Originally posted by htexans1: Comrade Obama sees the bill of rights and the counstitution as door mats on the front and back doors of the White House.

Yeah, dubya was different... he wiped his @ss with it. After all, he said, it was "just a damn piece of paper."

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Yeah, dubya was different... he wiped his @ss with it. After all, he said, it was "just a damn piece of paper."

Please provide proof, and in your words, do not speak in lies.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Please provide proof, and in your words, do not speak in lies.

He means things like the "illegal" wire taps. You know the ones Obama expanded on when he got into office.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Because there are plenty of people who interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that it applies only to militias. I happen to disagree. But to imply that there aren't ANY people who interpret it that way is nonsense. And for anyone to state with certainty that the Supreme Court decided the final determination of the 2nd amendment ignores history. You and I know there will certainly be future tests of the 2nd amendment - there have been in the past, there will undoubtedly be more in the future. Times change, people change, weapons change. All these will eventually need to be sorted out in some future time. For example - what about future non-lethal weapons? Should they be in the same category (and subject to the same legislation) as lethal weapons? Something to think about.

The only necessary test of the 2nd amendment is to understand what it is a part of - the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are known as "The Bill of Rights", and they are intended to ensure the rights of THE PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights is NOT about and rights, powers or anything else regarding the state. Other amendments address issues of state, but the first 10 amendments are about THE PEOPLE. Period. Want to talk about immutable facts, KT? There's one for you. Don't believe me?

United States Bill of Rights

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of the Bill of Rights.[2]

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, forbids infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, by Congress or citizens in a federal territory [3] and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[4] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.

Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Though they are incorporated into the document known as the "Bill of Rights", neither article establishes a right as that term is used today. For that reason, and also because the term had been applied to the first ten amendments long before the 27th Amendment was ratified, the term "Bill of Rights" in modern U.S. usage means only the ten amendments ratified in 1791.

The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the original fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: He means things like the "illegal" wire taps. You know the ones Obama expanded on when he got into office.

I was thinking it had to do with giving our enemies the same constitutional rights as US citizens.
Or maybe all of the people who opposed Bush, their families and everyone who knew them were locked up and never seen again.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons.

The problem with this statement is that the meanings of words change with time and individual interpretations. Just like "militia" and "well regulated" have changed over time so does the meaning of "military weapons". What is you definition of a military weapon? What if someone in power decides that anything semi-automatic is a military weapon or maybe anything larger than a .22?

I believe that any law (including the ban on fully automatic weapons) that limits which types of gun you can buy to be a direct violation of our 2nd amendment right. The people in power in government changes over time and the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give us the ability to resist a government intent on oppressing us. To do that we may have to have as much firepower as the oppressor.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I was thinking it had to do with giving our enemies the same constitutional rights as US citizens..

You are right about that, IMO that is how the current administration sees it.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Please provide proof, and in your words, do not speak in lies.

quote GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the ["patriot"]act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

http://gnn.tv/threads/10799...amned_piece_of_paper

I wonder if he thought that included the second amendment?




And:

http://osdir.com/ml/politic...006-05/msg00000.html

How many sources before it becomes NOT heresay, and becomes possible?
Answer: Infinity.
Even a certified transcript signed by every Supreme Court justice wouldn't matter.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally written by someone else but parroted as Gospel by NEPTUNE: GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the ["patriot"]act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Hearsay:

Noun

* S: (n) rumor, rumour, hearsay (gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth)

Adjective

* S: (adj) hearsay (heard through another rather than directly) "hearsay information"

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons. .

why ban military weapons if the idea is to have a citizen militia
shouldn't a militia have military grade weapons
inc anti-tank and AAA with full auto rifles
as any invading army sure will
or do the guys with deer rifles have a prayer
against a tank or jet

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: shouldn't a militia have military grade weapons

Yes, they should.

Next question?

Isn't the Militia just going to be reinterpreted as Obamas civilian force with uniforms, thus nullifying the public being the militia?

I could see that stretch being sold and bought by many.

Seems relevant to me, what did everyone else think of it and just avoid saying it?

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE:

Oooooh and he added a video! Oberman and some other clearly BDS sufferer was the best you could come up with to try to strengthen your case? Really?

To quote Mr. Turley in your video:

"when a president acquires power, he rarely gives it away"

"People accused of violating the law have a rapid assent in this administration, and one has to wonder whether this is suddenly a criteria, if the president likes people who are willing to go to the edge of the law, and beyond it to achieve what he believes is a worthy purpose."

What's funny is he could easily be talking about the current administration, here. How many tax cheats has Obama put in his administration, now?

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Seems relevant to me, what did everyone else think of it and just avoid saying it?

I was commenting on the point that the ONLY entities that find ANY document that outlines the "Rights Of The People" dangerous, is the Rulers themselves.
And they will do anything, say anything, blame anything, to change or abolish any such document.
Controll is only totally effective when it is TOTALLY CONTROLLING.


NO government wants it people to have guns.
It enables them to stand for right, against oppression.
Tyranny cannot have that.

That was the "Beating Of The Dead Horse".
They WILL eventually take EVERYTHING from us.
It's a done deal.

I said I was staying out of this.
See how THEY get ya'........................

Disclaimer:
I am a Republican.
I believe in limited government and free market economy principals.
I voted for both Bush Sr, and Bush Jr twice.
I am a Political Science graduate student. I've also accrued nearly enough credits from undergraduate courses to earn a Psychology degree.
I am a Law Student.

I voted for Obama over McCain not because he was Obama, or that I had partaken of the Obama kool-aid, but because he was the better candidate of the two. When I see posts similar to that found within this topic, I find myself wondering whether the conservative ideologues have lost their mind. Their myopic view of fiscal matters is truly staggering in the extreme. The current administration is not responsible in the slightest for our current problem, and to a degree, the previous administration. The current problems stem from the fact that big-business made staggeringly bad decisions that compounded over the course of almost a decade. These decisions have leaked into the public awareness, and as with any hot topic, has triggered a massive public backlash that has led to a severely crippled consumer confidence. Which makes things that much worse for big-business. The problems we have currently are not partisan, but are systemic to our entire capitalistic practice. There was a nationwide bubble, similar to the 1999-2001 Technology bubble. It popped.We're now suffering the consequences, and those responsible aren't facing a single consequence. It has n o t h i n g to do with the current administration, rather, it has everything to do with the companies we are trying to save.

We currently have two options : Let these businesses fail and deal with the cascade effects and consequences of double digit unemployment, or attempt to stem the tide and rescue consumer confidence.

I believe the current system is best, however much it does suck. I also believe the proposed tax plan is best as well, as it gives relief to the middle class and working poor. The previous administration's tax plan gave a greatly reduced ratio of tax to income in favour of the extremely wealthy, while a increased ratio to the middle and working-poor.

Talk about secession is pure stupidity as it would not fix the problems, but would provide a means for the political ideologue to act like poor losers. No one state, or minor collection of states in the union possess enough material or manufacturing capacity to improve upon their current condition. Also consider, that while you may hold a view that is one way, realize that others hold opposing views. This past election should have proved that much. Any secession would be ghastly and bloody.

As a side note. I've noticed a trend. While the GOP controlled the house, liberal ideologues whined and complained, much the same as the conservative ideologues do now. My message to you? Get over it.

[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I was commenting on the point that the ONLY entities that find ANY document that outlines the "Rights Of The People" dangerous, is the Rulers themselves. And they will do anything, say anything, blame anything, to change or abolish any such document. Controll is only totally effective when it is TOTALLY CONTROLLING. NO government wants it people to have guns. It enables them to stand for right, against oppression. Tyranny cannot have that. That was the "Beating Of The Dead Horse". They WILL eventually take EVERYTHING from us. It's a done deal. I said I was staying out of this. See how THEY get ya'........................

Funny thing I have always found amussing to consider.

How does a Government protect the Liberty of it's people?

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: [QUOTE] GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the ["patriot"]act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

http://gnn.tv/threads/10799...amned_piece_of_paper

I wonder if he thought that included the second amendment?




http://osdir.com/ml/politic...006-05/msg00000.html

[/QUOTE]
So I am waiting for a picture of the constitution with the brown stain and the DNA report proving he wiped his a$$ with it.
If he did call it just a damn piece of paper then damn him. If this is the case, would it not be on tape?

quote Originally posted by Khw: Funny thing I have always found amussing to consider. How does a Government protect the Liberty of it's people?

back in the "old days" there would be foreign invaders.
kinda like how we took this land from the indians, the g'ment protects us, from someone else doing the same.....

but, the side effect now is: most people dont see this as a threat anymore.

one of the drawbacks of doing a great job - it begins to look like the job is not needed anymore.

beleive me when I say: our farmlands are the envy of the world. china has their eye on them for a long time. and, I fear the day they cash in their IOU's for them lands.....

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: The current administration is not responsible in the slightest for our current problem, and to a degree, the previous administration. The current problems stem from the fact that big-business made staggeringly bad decisions that compounded over the course of almost a decade.

I knew this, my point is Obama's plans IMO will not help, maybe will cheer us up for a year, then wham, it will be worse having wasted the "bailout/ stimulus" the way this current bill is, and some of the other posts are about the objectives that seem to have nothing to do with stimulating the economy or keeping the country safe. I am not trying to place blame on a party as to why we are where we are, that is said and done.
Though many still do it.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: How many sources before it becomes NOT heresay, and becomes possible? Answer: Infinity. Even a certified transcript signed by every Supreme Court justice wouldn't matter.

That is correct, it will always be hearsay. That is why hearsay is NOT proof.

But, for clarification, you two "sources" are both quoting the same original "Source". So even though you provided two links, they're really only one source.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: http://gnn.tv/threads/10799...amned_piece_of_paper http://osdir.com/ml/politic...006-05/msg00000.html

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

Hearsay can be proof. Google hearsay exceptions, or log on to Lexus Nexis and look up the various court cases where it was admitted.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: back in the "old days" there would be foreign invaders. kinda like how we took this land from the indians, the g'ment protects us, from someone else doing the same.....

It wasn't just invaders they had to protect us from was it?

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Hearsay can be proof. Google hearsay exceptions, or log on to Lexus Nexis and look up the various court cases where it was admitted.

Ah, Hearsay can be evidence (in a legal sense), but not proof.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: It wasn't just invaders they had to protect us from was it?

nope, but that was the majority. there are also internal trouble makers, like robbers, theives, etc.

Evidence + Jury => Proof.

The terms are used interchangeably, and any argument to the contrary is merely a study in semantics.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Evidence + Jury => Proof. The terms are used interchangeably, and any argument to the contrary is merely a study in semantics.

and besides - this is Internet Forum. proof is NOT required. if you dont beleive something - go find out for yourself, and post the results.

some of us think freely, and not based on others work.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Evidence + Jury => Proof. The terms are used interchangeably, and any argument to the contrary is merely a study in semantics.

No. The terms may be used interchangeably from time to time, but they are not the same. Proof is absolute, evidence (as its accepted from a legal standpoint) is pseudo-proof or "proof within a reasonable doubt".

Either way, Neptune's article about a guy who talked to a few people who heard GWB say something is not proof the GWB said it.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Evidence + Jury => Proof. The terms are used interchangeably, and any argument to the contrary is merely a study in semantics.

No that isn't proof. If it was innocent people wouldn't be in jail on evidence from hearsay + juries.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: No. The terms may be used interchangeably in a courtrooms, but they are not the same. Proof is absolute, evidence (as its accepted from a legal standpoint) is pseudo-proof or "proof within a reasonable doubt".

Nothing in law is _ever_ absolute.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Evidence + Jury => Proof. The terms are used interchangeably, and any argument to the contrary is merely a study in semantics.

No,,,, it = a decision, guilty, not guilty nothing more. You must be 1st year

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Nothing in law is _ever_ absolute.

That's what I said. Evidence is "proof within a reasonable doubt".

Proof is not evidence, evidence is not proof.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: nope, but that was the majority. there are also internal trouble makers, like robbers, theives, etc.

So outside threats was very important, hence the creation of a Navy, and of course the political powers given to the legislative and executive branches for foreign interactions such as treaties.

You also mention internal trouble, so basically to protect us from each other as well.

How?

Gather any collection of law professionals in a room and have them debate the terms. You'll never get a definitive plurality. Nothing submitted within a trial is proof beyond all reasonable, or by a measure of the preponderance of the evidence, as untenable.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: Nothing submitted within a trial is proof beyond all reasonable

Correct, that is why hearsay may be legally admissible evidence, yet still not literal proof.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: So outside threats was very important, hence the creation of a Navy, and of course the political powers given to the legislative and executive branches for foreign interactions such as treaties. You also mention internal trouble, so basically to protect us from each other as well. How?

there are many ways. and, being such a vague question, I will throw a vague answer: by the will of its people.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Correct, that is why it is evidence, not proof.

..quoth the chicken to the egg.

quote Originally posted by ArbinShire: ..quoth the chicken to the egg.

Forgive my assumption if I am incorrect, but I see you arguing for the sake of the argument.

Would you care to explain how an article where a guy said he talked to three people that say they heard President Bush say the constitution was "just a !@#!@* piece paper" is proof that the President actually said it?

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2009).]