Muddy Creek
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,103
- Reaction score
- 699
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You ever been to a gun show?
You can tell the difference between someone who collects guns and who wants one to kill someone. A gun dealer will not sell a gun to someone that wants to kill someone.
You clearly have no experience with gun owners or dealers. Go try to buy a gun just to do it and see what happens. They will size you up and if you don't know what you're talking about or look like you don't know what the hell you're doing they won't sell you a gun.
You better believe gun dealers, owners, traders etc know what they're selling or trading can take a human life and that is a lot more serious than a profit. 100 bucks profit is not worth a human life - I know to a selfish progressive it is (because you assume we're greedy rednecks obsessed with murder) but not to us responsible folk.
Go learn something about us "gun nuts" before you make insane accusations.
You don't know where the Constitution uses the word "person"?
I'm not surprised at all
I don't care what you want to call it... The definition of knowingly and intentionally taking ones life in the English language is Murder.
You can call that action a shoe for all I care.
However you're a shining example and product of "whole language." Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now doesn't that whole language thing sound familiar?
I don't care what you want to call it... The definition of knowingly and intentionally taking ones life in the English language is Murder.
You can call that action a shoe for all I care.
However you're a shining example and product of "whole language." Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now doesn't that whole language thing sound familiar?
Show me where in the Constitution a person is defined.
SCOTUS is and they did
The SCOTUS isn't in a position to be making those judgments either. They're lawyers not God.
To make matters even worse the Fourteenth Amendment completely contradicts everything the SCOTUS spews on just about every ruling.
The constitution is not a dictionary. It doesn't define any word
The constitution grants SCOTUS the authority to make those judgements. The people gave them that power
Hence everything you have implied in this thread is nonsense...
Is the SCOTUS a dictionary? apparently you think they are.
No the people did not grant the SCOTUS that power...
This is not a direct democracy and the SCOTUS was not a ballot proposition.
SCOTUS has the authority to determine the meaning of words as they are used in the constitution
Yes, the people did grant SCOTUS that power.
No, the responsibility of the SCOTUS is to interpret law - not define words.
You're a big ball of fun.
Really? prove it... Educate us all on the basis of the SCOTUS existence.
Oh yeah that is right you cant.
Besides the SCOTUS is basically unconstitutional itself. The SCOTUS are nothing more than arbitrators that only exist to settle legislation disputes or the legality of a piece of legislation. The retarded part is that if congress passes a law and the president signs the legislation it's law - only the president has veto power NOT the SCOTUS.. That makes the SCOTUS illegal and the majority of legislation passed by congress illegal and tyrannical if it violates the Bill of Rights.
Outside of the legality behind the SCOTUS, the simple fact the arbitrators exist shows our lawmakers have absolutely no idea what they're doing if they need a higher court to legitimize their laws. These said lawmakers wouldn't know their head from their ass and that is sad because the majority of them are lawyers...
Sad no one looks at it from that perspective.
Art III
Please post the text so we can all see it.
SCOTUS is illegal? :screwy
:lamo :lamo :lamo
Is Google not your friend?
You're the one making the argument, and you're allegedly trying to make a point - so point it out.
I know the Constitution and have one in my pocket, however you're the one making claims so back them up - educate us all.
In that case, your request for Art III was dishonest
And there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of cases where premes survived outside the mother. So who are you to determine the validity of a life?
You may as well say old people who need constant care should just be murdered because they couldn't survive on their own.
Guess what? an infant cant survive on it's own.... Hell, generally a kid younger than 5-years-old probably couldn't survive on its own.
I suppose your point is moot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?