Contributors

Friday, February 15, 2013

They Deserve A Vote

On Monday night, 34 year old Nhan Tran stood at a busy intersection in Oakdale, a suburb of St. Paul, and started shooting. 9 year old Devin Aryal was shot several times and killed in the back of his mother's minivan. Now, Melissa Aryal becomes yet another parent in a collection of far too many who have lost a child to gun violence. And the response from the Right?

Fuck you. Don't take away my gun, Hitler.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said the following.

It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment – have come together around commonsense reform – like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned. 

Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. 

One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. 

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. 


Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. 


The families of Newtown deserve a vote. 


The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote. 


Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government. 


We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example.


Indeed, we should. So why hasn't their been a vote?

In listening to the chest thumping bravado and imperial declarations of the gun rights folks, one would think that all changes to existing gun laws will fail. Fine. Prove it. Put your vote where your mouth is, ass hats. The Republicans in the House should put together a bill and vote on it. Harry Reid should do the same thing in the Senate. In short, get it fucking done.

Let the American people see where their leaders stand on the issue of gun violence. I want to see who is going to vote no and stand with the old gun laws that are clearly not effective anymore. You can add Melissa Aryal to the list of people who deserve a simple vote. You can rest assured that there will be more added to the list each and every day that passes until there is a vote.

The time is now.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

We also deserve a vote.

What you really mean is "they deserve total moral superiority that silences everyone else." But you don't want to say it that way because it sounds too much like exactly what it is.

Children react solely on emotion. Adults look at all the facts and push emotion aside to take the long view. How should adults respond when children are throwing emotional temper tantrums?

Anonymous said...

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote.

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.


No, they don't! They don't get to vote away a right. Not now and not ever. The president's and your position is so fundamentally flawed that you should have your vote removed for reasons of mental deficiency. We as a people don't take popular vote on fundamental rights.

Mark Ward said...

That's a nice heading off at the pass comment, NMN, but the origin point of emotional reaction is coming from you people, not the ones looking at the starisiracs and trying to solve a very serious problem.

Other than "fuck you, Hitler" you don't have anything else to offer. 1000 deaths since Newrton, NMN. Still going to stick with the same shit?

Mark Ward said...

Re: your second comment....the voting will be done by their elected representatives, not the people themselves. He's calling for a congressional vote on changes to gun laws. Why is that a problem? What are you afraid of?

And for the nine thousandth time, your right to own a gun will not be taken away. Enough with the hits from the paranoia bong.

Anonymous said...

Universal background checks WILL NOT WORK without universal registration.

Those polls you keep referencing are WORTHLESS because they do not specify this. The 'majority' of people who support increased background checks, if informed those checks will also require registration will change their position.


nd for the nine thousandth time, your right to own a gun will not be taken away

Hey, for the nine thousandth time, you can still ride the bus - you just have to sit in the portion you are told to. You can still drink out of a water fountain - just not the ones those other people drink out of. You can still send your kids to school, just not the school those other kids go to.....


You can still speak your mind, just not some of the more controversial topics.

You can still have an abortion - just not anytime past the first 1/8 trimester and not without an ultrasound and counseling first.

You can still get married - to a person of the opposite sex - just like everyone else.

See, no one is taking away your rights......

Anonymous said...

1000 deaths since Newrton

In contrast to this? That is what YOU keep IGNORING. History, results, actions, human nature. Where do these play in your emotional rants, Mark? Other than in "it can't happen here"?

your right to own a gun will not be taken away.

So I guess those bills being presented in Congress to ban guns don't actually exist? Or are you saying that we have a "right" to own a gun, as long as we don't actually have any?

It's not that you're lying that pisses me off so much as you thinking everyone is too fucking STUPID to realize that bills to ban guns are bills to ban guns.

Hell, you CAN'T EVEN ANSWER THIS!!!

----------

Given the following…

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
Markadelphia

and this…

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?

----------

Or even this simple, obvious question:

----------

Is the Constitution law?

----------

Your TOTAL inability to deal with those questions is NOT looking at the statistics, Mark. That's Flat. Out. DENIAL.

Anonymous said...

1000 deaths since Newrton

A) Are all those deaths unjustified? I.e., murder.

B) What are the general circumstances of the murders?

C) What social changes would reduce those murders?

Mark Ward said...

You know, NMN, I think you should try that revision of gun laws as the Holocaust equivalency out on some Jewish folks. Same for you, GD, but with black people;)

Anonymous said...

Yep, you can't actually address the arguments. So why should anyone listen to you?

Mark Ward said...

Then why bother commenting?

Anonymous said...

Because the truth matters. And I keep hoping something will click and the truth will start mattering to you too.

Anonymous said...

Same for you, GD, but with black people

Why me Mark? Those were your views I was paraphrasing. You should go speak to your 'I have a black friend' person.

See, unlike you, I have a problem when any rights are violated or infringed. Not just the ones I like or are more important to me.

You on the other hand actually want to violate and infringe rights that you don't like.

Mark Ward said...

Because the truth matters. And I keep hoping something will click and the truth will start mattering to you too.

But you're not telling the truth. In fact, your entire ideology is based on lies and cult like fervor. What's even more frightening is that you ascribe that description to liberals in what has to be the finest example of denial in the history of mankind.

There is an easy way to test who is the one being honest and open minded and who is the one who is basically brainwashed. I'm willing to admit that I'm not perfect. Some of my ideas might not work. Are you willing to admit the same thing? Or you always right?

Mark Ward said...

I have a problem when any rights are violated or infringed.

Except that they aren't being infringed. Even if there is some sort of assault weapons ban or magazine ban, you will still have plenty of guns with which to defend yourself. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the next step is slavery or the fucking Holocaust for fuck's sake. Managing your paranoia is holding this country back from solving a multitude of problems.

Universal background checks WILL NOT WORK without universal registration.

Because you say so? Sorry, but I'm not falling for more imperial declarations. Of course, by admitting this, you are essentially saying you don't give a shit about criminals or other warped individuals getting guns. It just gets more and more insane with you people every single fucking day, doesn't it?

Mark Ward said...

And why don't you want Congress to vote on anything again?

Anonymous said...

Except that they aren't being infringed.

Simple test of who is telling the truth: Look up the definition of "infringe".

Anonymous said...

I'm willing to admit that I'm not perfect. Some of my ideas might not work. Are you willing to admit the same thing? Or you always right?

Look at the school thread. I wrote something that was wrong. I do get things wrong from time to time. But the big difference between the two of us is that I make an effort to figure out what the truth is and correct my thinking when I am wrong; just like I did in that thread.

Anonymous said...

And why don't you want Congress to vote on anything again?

Is the Constitution LAW?

Does a right stop being a right because of a 50%+1 vote?

Juris Imprudent said...

Gosh, M why would anyone question your good faith in political discussion.

You just did what you accuse conservatives of doing.

The beauty is that you did it without a twinge of hypocrisy. Hope you're proud.

Juris Imprudent said...

Have you ever figured out what authority Congress has to impose universal background checks?

You always claim the CSM is a reliable source.

Juris Imprudent said...

Even if there is some sort of assault weapons ban or magazine ban, you will still have plenty of guns with which to defend yourself.'

So if we ban whiskey, we haven't banned alcohol because you can still drink beer or wine, is that your logic?

Mark Ward said...

But the big difference between the two of us is that I make an effort to figure out

That's a minor mistake. I'm talking about bigger issues and fundamental ideology.

Mark Ward said...

Does a right stop being a right because of a 50%+1 vote?

Ah, so you are worried that Congress will vote in a way you don't like. So much for the fear of the gun lobby:)

Is the Constitution LAW?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

As far as I'm concerned, the final word on guns and the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Universal background checks WILL NOT WORK without universal registration.

Because you say so? Sorry, but I'm not falling for more imperial declarations.


No, because I am armed with knowledge and logic. Both of with which you fire blanks.

If I were to say 'if you do not catch it or restrain it in some manner a rock you throw off a building will fall to the ground' and you were to call it an imperial declaration then I would sigh and call you a fucking idiot.

With that in mind...

...sigh....

Mark you are a fucking idiot.

Let me explain in a manner that your pea sized Neanderthal brain can handle.

Let's say the Cro-magnon government passed a law that cavemen had to ask 'mother may I' before trading rocks.

There are about 100 million rocks among about 300 million cavemen. Problems being the government doesn't know exactly how many rocks there are, what cavemen have which rocks or even which cavemen have rocks and which have no rocks.

Additionally, while some rocks have unique identifying features called 'serial numbers', other rocks do not. This, despite what you may 'know' from watching Law and Order: Neanderthal Victims unit is not necessarily illegal.

And as a further complication, some cavemen, equipped with a little knowledge, skill and these things called 'tools' are able - in the back of their cave - to turn boulders into rocks all by themselves.

So with all these problems, when the Cro-magnon G-man walks up to Og and says "Og, I just heard you bought this rock from Ug without saying 'mother may I." All Og has to say is "No. This Og's favorite rock. Og had rock for long time." And Ug says "Ug never seen rock before in life". Mr. G-man has no record of the rock beyond the last transfer to the government licensed rock dealer and has NO proof that Ug sold the rock to Og.

Now if G-man watches Ug hand the rock to Og and says "Ah-ha! I caught you selling that rock to Og." All Ug has to say is "No. This Ug's favorite rock. Just show rock to Og. No give away."

So, universal background checks WILL NOT work without also requiring full registration. Unless, of course you know this and your intention for wanting said checks really has nothing to do with controlling crime and more to do with just control.

Anonymous said...

Except that they aren't being infringed. Even if there is some sort of assault weapons ban or magazine ban, you will still have plenty of guns with which to defend yourself.

Ahhh yes.

And Rosa Parks could still ride the fucking bus and go wherever she fucking needed to right? Her rights weren't being infringed - she just didn't like it. I guess she had a case of adolescent power fantasy too huh?

Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Mark, is "false" equal to "truth"?

Mark Ward said...

No, because I am armed with knowledge and logic

No, you aren't. The only facts you have are in the bubble which basically means they are the opposite. And this whole discussion of logic is terribly amusing given your predilection adolescent temper tantrums about the government.

I will agree, though, that you're all about style and not substance:)

Anonymous said...

The only facts you have are in the bubble

And Marks claims denial of reality is a conservative value…

Mark, is "false" equal to "truth"?

Mark Ward said...

I wonder how long the whole "champions of facts and logic" thing will last. This is a core belief in the right wing blogsphere and, honestly, a great example of groupthink. One would think the last few elections would have woken you guys up but alas, it appears not be so. Perhaps it is indeed true...you guys don't want to win elections. You just want to "win" arguments.

Anonymous said...

No, you aren't.

Fine. You explain how exactly universal background checks will work and be effective without universal registration.

Mark Ward said...

If you purchase a gun, the seller must run a background check. This already happens for most gun purchases and now it will happen for all of them. Background checks are so common now for more than just gun purchases and those haven't led to anything you are describing. Aren't you guys supposed to want to stop criminals from getting guns? It doesn't seem that way.

Further, I don't get why you guys aren't out front on this with some different ideas. What about organizing more gun safety programs or starting a mental health system of some sort with extensive firearm training. It seems to me that it would be more (ahem) logical if you are actually trying to reduce gun violence.

Juris Imprudent said...

If you purchase a gun, the seller must run a background check.

How would that work if you bought a gun from Nikto?

You want to proclaim yourself the side of facts and logic, fine: explain how the federal govt is empowered to demand universal background checks. What clause of the Constitution covers this?

Juris Imprudent said...

It seems to me that it would be more (ahem) logical if you are actually trying to reduce gun violence.

No. The shortest and surest path to reducing gun violence is to pre-emptively violate the rights (2nd, 4th, 5th) of black men between the ages of 14 to 35 living in cities.

Are you up for arguing in favor of that? Why not?

Anonymous said...

This already happens for most gun purchases and now it will happen for all of them.

This happens when a licensed firearms DEALER sells a firearm.

A licensed dealer is 'registered' himself. He must keep records of all firearms in is possession. He must also allow the AFT access to his inventory and records at any time.

Once that sale is made then the records of where that firearm goes are ... gone. *at least they are supposed to be.

I have lots of guns. The government does not know how many or what specifically I have.

They have NO way of knowing if I buy or sell one to my neighbor.

If they do not know what I have or what my neighbor has then they have no way of knowing if we bought or sold anything to each other.

Does that make sense to you?


Juris Imprudent said...

Don't you know GD, you and I are just making appeals to emotion - so M doesn't have to answer or questions or otherwise address what we say.

Instead, he'll have a conversation with some of the voices in his head - and watch, he'll respond to this bit.

Mark Ward said...

The government does not know how many or what specifically I have.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the problem. You're worried the government is going to come after you if there are any changes to the law. They're not coming after you, GD. There is no army of statists waiting to pounce on you. Come out of the bubble. It's OK. Don't be afraid:)

Regarding your neighbor, suppose you did sell him your gun without checking him out. You trust him, right? He likely is a stand up guy. But suppose one day he needs some cash and then sells it to someone who you don't know. And that person sells it to a criminal who ends up shooting someone.

What I find interesting about your attitude about this is that it is in direct contradiction to your bowel blowing over Fast and Furious. You have no problem allowing guns to be sold without tracking them. But if Eric Holder does it, then he's a traitor. What a hypocritical load.

It's time for you guys to take responsibility for the culture that you have helped to create.

Juris Imprudent said...

It's time for you guys to take responsibility for the culture that you have helped to create.

Fuck you.

Juris Imprudent said...

So tell Mr Facts and Logic - what part of this culture did I create and that I have to take responsibility for?

Mark Ward said...

That would be the part where guns are problem solvers.

Juris Imprudent said...

That would be the part where guns are problem solvers.

Was that addressed to me, or were you conversing with some voice in your head? Must've been a voice in your head because that makes absolutely no sense in response to me.

And you still haven't answered what part of the Constitution authorizes the federal govt to enact and enforce a universal background check law.

Larry said...

Hey, asshole! The problem we have with Eric Holder and Fast and Furious is that BATFEIEIO and Co. were KNOWINGLY selling guns to criminals. That's just a wee fucking bit different than juris selling a gun to someone who sells it to someone else who sells it to a criminal, isn't it?

And you still haven't explained how universal background checks can work without universal registration.

And you're simply lying about no one wanting to ban guns. And your newly-admitted position seems to be, "I don't want to ban ALL of your guns. Just some of them. For The Children." Of course, when that has no measurable effect, you and you ilk will be back for more. We've already seen how this played out in England and Australia. No thanks.

Anonymous said...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

It's an answer, but not to the question that was asked, which is…

Is the Constitution law?

Still waiting on this one too:

Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Anonymous said...

Of course, when that has no measurable effect, you and you ilk will be back for more.

Note that he already knows there will be no measurable effect. Biden already admitted it in so many words, and Mark has seen his admission. But for some "odd" reason, Mark couldn't (or wouldn't) explain why they should push ahead anyway.

Mark Ward said...

were KNOWINGLY selling guns to criminals.

Except that's exactly what you are doing by refusing to allow universal background checks.

Of course, when that has no measurable effect, you and you ilk will be back for more.

They's a comin'!!! Look out!!! Reeducation camps!!!!

We've already seen how this played out in England and Australia. No thanks.

Uh...huh? I don't speak "in the bubble." Either of those countries become totalitarian states recently? Crime running rampant? Murder rate higher than it was before the bans? Let's see some numbers and some evidence. No right wing biased sites, please.

Don't write a check with your keyboard that your butt can't cash.

Is the Constitution law?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

Anonymous said...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

It's an answer, but not to the question that was asked, which is…

Is the Constitution law?

Still waiting on this one too:

Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Mark Ward said...

Is the Constitution law?

I don't have anything more to add to Scalia's opinion on the second amendment.

Juris Imprudent said...

Except that's exactly what you are doing by refusing to allow universal background checks.

What clause of the Constitution grants the federal govt a general police power M?

Anonymous said...

I don't have anything more to add to Scalia's opinion on the second amendment.

That's not surprising considering you have misinterpreted his brief multiple times.

Scalia also does not answer within Heller whether the Constitution is law. This is a separate question being asked of you, for a different reason. You are dodging.

Anonymous said...

Of course, when that has no measurable effect, you and you ilk will be back for more.

They's a comin'!!! Look out!!! Reeducation camps!!!!



Historical fact dude. Your ilk keeps coming back for more and more and more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

Larry said...

Meanwhile, Markafuckwad cannot explain how universal background checks can possibly accomplish anything at all without universal mandatory registration. And if long-gun registration is as effective here as it was in Canada's long gun registry (fat chance -- there's no chance at all that it won't be widely defied, including by local law enforcement), it will be expensive, almost worthless to police, and will have zero effect on criminals. Even the Veep admits as much.

Mark Ward said...

Regardless what happens in the next few months with gun laws, I am certain that none of you will like it and all of you will continue to believe that the government will be on the cusp of seizing all guns. Any day now...

Juris Imprudent said...

Regardless what happens...

I'll be perfectly happy if nothing happens.

You won't be.

Nor will you even attempt to answer what power the Constitution grants to Congress that allows this.

Mark Ward said...

I'll be perfectly happy if nothing happens.

Well, I think that's pretty fucking sad, juris. We have a very high rate of gun violence in this country that results in thousands of deaths every year. And then you bring up me and some childish question about the Constitution? Quite frankly, your lack of solutions, your inability to problem solve rationally (due to hysteria), and your general laziness while people die is sub human.

Thankfully, you're not alone so I suppose you can take some comfort in that.

Larry said...

Hey, asshole! Even as gun ownership and concealed-carry permit rates go up, gun violence continues to go down! Now explain to me why that indicates we're not doing the right thing right now?

Meanwhile, you have YET to explain just how the fuck universal background checks can possibly work without universal registration, nor how universal registration would be implemented.

And while you sneer at how Australia and Britain haven't instituted camp systems for dissenters, you dodge the question of why in the world Americans shouldn't think that the same tactics used to over time effectively disarm Australians and Brits aren't aimed at the same result here. Especially when the gun control organizations state that that's their aim. That's simply not a right most Americans are willing to surrender.

Of course, when you bring up death camps, you're busily arguing against something I never said. Next time, ADDRESS WHAT I ACTUALLY SAY, ASSHOLE!

You've not quite done complete 180 on the subject in the last couple months, but pretty damned close. I guess that's some of your vaunted flexibility and pragmatism. You were against further gun control when it looked impossible, but are now all for it, thereby putting the lie to all your previous protestations. Flexibility, is the key, I guess. It's absolutely necessary in order to get your head wedged so far up your ass that your shoulders fit in there, too.

Like juris, I will be most pleaseed if nothing happens with regard to gun control laws. Meanwhile, by all means continue to be a dishonest asshole and dodge the substantive questions.

Anonymous said...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

It's an answer, but not to the question that was asked, which is…

Is the Constitution law?

Note that the words "second" (or "2nd") and "amendment" appear nowhere in the question.

Still waiting on this one too:

Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Apparently Mark refuses to answer the second question because he does think they're equal.

Mark Ward said...

gun violence continues to go down!

And yet Newtown still happened. I think you should share your views with the parents who lost their children. Tell them that violence is going down. Tell the families of the 1000 people who have died since Newtown that things are better.

So, perhaps you should set aside your bullshit about liberals, gun grabbing, Stalin, and the government and maybe come up with some solutions to the problem we have in our society.

Mark Ward said...

Apparently Mark refuses to answer the second question because he does think they're equal.

Who are performing for? No one else is reading this except for the four or five of us.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, I think that's pretty fucking sad, juris.

That's okay, I think you are pretty fucking pathetic. It all evens out.

And then you bring up me and some childish question about the Constitution?

It is childish to discuss what our federal govt is and is not empowered to do? Are you FUCKING kidding me?

How can you be that fucking dishonest?

We have a very high rate of gun violence in this country that results in thousands of deaths every year.

Yeah, I guess you just live to be a total fucking liar; if your political masters point you in a direction - you go without the slightest pause for thought.

How fucking sad indeed.

No one else is reading this except for the four or five of us.

Oops, so now we know who the entirety of the YLDP was, don't we. See what happens when you rely on lying - the truth eventually slips out. Not that that will bother you of course - you don't care how many times you are exposed as a liar, as hypocrite, as a fraud.

That is sad too.

Anonymous said...

It is childish to discuss what our federal govt is and is not empowered to do? Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Thus, the reason why he refuses to answer a simple 4 word question. He cannot claim law is childish.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law?

Is "false" equal to "truth"?

Mark Ward said...

It is childish to discuss what our federal govt is and is not empowered to do? Are you FUCKING kidding me?

No, it's not. But the manner in which you ask is so fucking ridiculous that it's hard for me to really care. It's childish...rude...obssesive...I mean, take a look at NMN's continued behavior. It's no wonder you don't like the outside world that much. Where on earth do you fit in?

And somehow that's all my fault which, I suppose, makes sense given that I speak uncomfortable truths about the style and substance the ideology to which you adhere.

Mark Ward said...

Oops, so now we know who the entirety of the YLDP was

Well, the sad fact is that when I shifted to requiring an open id or google account we lost some folks. I'd like to see some fresher faces in comments anyway.

I am glad, though, that your brought up the YLDP. I didn't realize it at the time but isn't that essentially what you guys are? Yet another heading off at the pass comment. Why am I not surprised?

Juris Imprudent said...

No, it's not.

You just fucking said it was. And you refuse to actually discuss it, even when it was politely posed. You are damn right I'm snotty about it now - because you wouldn't engage on it when it was given as an honest, fair and legitimate question.

It's no wonder you don't like the outside world that much.

LMAO - you are just quite a judgmental piece of shit at times, aren't you? Just because I don't have patience for faux-intellectual bullshitters doesn't mean I don't fit into the world. And I don't have to give or receive fawning admiration to know it.

And somehow that's all my fault which, I suppose, makes sense given that I speak uncomfortable truths about the style and substance the ideology to which you adhere.

That's rich. You can't even say what the legal authority is for the federal govt to enact something - but you are just sure that they will, and if they won't - well, then, that makes juris imprudent a horrible person.

Childish and dishonest - that really should be the tag for most of what you have to say.

Mark Ward said...

juris, I have to give you credit. Even though you are my harshest critic, you always come up with something interesting and unique to say. At least your aren't the textbook definition of insanity:)

Juris Imprudent said...

Pointing out your inconsistencies M, that is all I have to do and I spend way too much time doing so.

If you criticized yourself some I would have much less of it to do.

Anonymous said...

Markadelphia: Except that they aren't being infringed.

Me: Simple test of who is telling the truth: Look up the definition of "infringe".

That was 2 days ago. Apparently, Mark wants to use words without having to care about what they actually mean, or maybe he's afraid of being exposed (yet again) as a liar.

Infringed:

1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.

2. to encroach or trespass.


Trespass… Hmmmm…

Is it only trespassing once an uninvited person is standing over your bed with a knife? Or is it trespassing the moment he crosses the property line? Mark would have us believe it's only trespassing when the knife touches your throat. (Or is it when it breaks the skin? It's a little hard to tell sometimes.)

Oh, but that's a modern dictionary definition. Maybe Mark will argue that "infringed" had a different meaning back when the Constitution was written. Let's see:

The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.



The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”



The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged”, were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”.



First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
(Emphasis added)

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (40 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (2 days and counting)