Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"FTFY" type of shenanigans are strongly discouraged here on Dakka Dakka.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Self-defense isn't in the Constitution its true. However I think reasonable people can agree that its a fundamental human right.

I would definitely agree that, just as I would agree it's a woman's fundamental right to have an abortion or that one consenting adult is free to enter into a marriage with another legally consenting adult.

That's why "well, there is no right to x in the constitution", "legislating from the bench" and "creating rights out of thin air" are problematic arguments. I strongly suspect that you have an issue with 2 out of 3 of those, despite the fact that all of them came to be in identical manners. You can't decide self-defense isn't provided for, but it's ok because reasons while also handwaving away the others without looking like a pretty big hypocrite.

The right to self defense isn't in the US constitution because the constitution only deals with Negative Rights and the right to self defense is a Liberty Right. The constitution consists of laying out the framework for the Federal government and the Bill of Rights is a list of 10 Negative Rights, which are limitations on the ability of the Federal government to infringe on the liberty of its citizens. The constitution does not attempt to list every Liberty Right to which US citizens are entitled which is why they aren't there. The fact that they aren't listed in the constitution doesn't mean they don't exist, the constitution is an important foundational document but it is not the be all end all of our laws and rights. The founders who wrote the constitution were fully aware of Common Law which is the reason why we have the Judicial Branch, to make rulings that set precedents. The constitution doesn't need to include rights to self defense or marriage because the precedence of existing common law already codifies such rights. The courts don't "legislate from the bench" they issue rulings that both set and adhere to precedent, they create Common Law which is equally valid as the Legislature passing laws and the Executive issuing regulations. It is the direct opposite of being unconstitutional as it is in keeping with the specific reasoning behind the creation of the Three Branches of Government in the constitution. We are not reliant on the legislative branch to pass laws to cover absolutely everything, that is precisely what Common Law is for. We can legislate laws to create more specificity and clarity on rights like self defense but such a right has already been codified into Common Law for several centuries so it already exists.

Bans on homosexual marriage are unconstitutional because they take citizens that are equal in the eyes of the law (heterosexuals and homosexuals) and force the State to make them unequal for no compelling reason and in the absence of any criminal behavior. That forced inequality violates the constitution. The right to marry another consenting adult already existed in Common Law so there is no constitutional challenge for the right to marry, there is only a constitutional challenge to the government's ability to prohibit the exercise by a citizen of their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

You guys are arguing over a straw man.

This woman just isn't going away...

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/12/462792019/kim-davis-to-attend-obamas-state-of-the-union-address

Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

 LordofHats wrote:
Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

Dont you see, Liberty is about what I want and what I believe, not anything else.
Now, where is the trump to suggest concentration camps.

 LordofHats wrote:
Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray

 Ustrello wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray

Hey, if they want to go against what their God said then they can go and openly pray

Matthew 6:6 wrote:When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…

 Ustrello wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray

And what laws say that?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Still not sure how not having your religion enshrined into law = liberty being trampled. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of liberty being trampled

Yeah it is too bad that they can't wear symbols of their religion around their neck or openly pray

And what laws say that?

I was making a joke that some christians are saying they are being persecuted/liberty being trampled and yet they are allowed to openly pray and show their religion etc.

 Ustrello wrote:


I was making a joke that some christians are saying they are being persecuted/liberty being trampled and yet they are allowed to openly pray and show their religion etc.

*Shakes fist in the air* damn you poe's law!

Though going back to the Davis thing, she has a surprising amount of limbs for someone who takes the bible so literally

Matthew 5:29-30 New International Version (NIV)

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Well now I don't think we need to go that far in mocking her XD She was an idiot with unreasonable expectations and who is now held up by people with unreasonable expectations as a symbol of the persecution that exists only in their heads.

Let's not drift to far in our mocking, least we go dangerously close to Christian bashing

So, Obama's last State of the union is today. Thoughts?


(URL for live youtube thing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WweX6_cAV5Q

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So, Obama's last State of the union is today. Thoughts?


(URL for live youtube thing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WweX6_cAV5Q

It's the last one.

'bout time.

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".

If you cannot figure out the difference between individuals who were aware of their being posted to warzones to serve as ambassadors/representatives of the United States and people killed by random acts of violence within our own country and think that those people are somehow equatable to a valid, voluntary medical procedure?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".

If you cannot figure out the difference between individuals who were aware of their being posted to warzones to serve as ambassadors/representatives of the United States and people killed by random acts of violence within our own country and think that those people are somehow equatable to a valid, voluntary medical procedure?

If you cannot see how Obama is exploiting the dead by leaving an empty chair in the First Lady's skybox to represent those killed by gun violence as anything but a blatant political act...

Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...

 d-usa wrote:
Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...

Right. I'm trying to prove a point.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".

Thats a good idea, we can leave an empty chair for all of the people that were killed by militant anti abortion people, seeing as you know they were actually people.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...

Right. I'm trying to prove a point.

And failing miserably in doing so.

Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were all individuals who knew the situation they were going into. They weren't killed by someone who just woke up one day and decided to go shoot up a friggin' school or shopping mall.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yet you just exploited the dead a few posts ago...

Right. I'm trying to prove a point.

And failing miserably in doing so.

Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were all individuals who knew the situation they were going into. They weren't killed by someone who just woke up one day and decided to go shoot up a friggin' school or shopping mall.

No... I used those as examples to call out the President for using the dead as a political prop to achieve whatever gun-control measures he wants to push.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also, a seat next to Michelle Obama will be left empty to represent "will be left empty for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice."

Will there be one for Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty??

Jesus... did they think this thru??? They're channeling Eastwood?

This is why it is hard to take any of your comments as anything but partisan trash.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Would be hysterical if someone brought an empty baby crib to represent "the abortion victims who no longer have a voice".

Thats a good idea, we can leave an empty chair for all of the people that were killed by militant anti abortion people, seeing as you know they were actually people.

Sure, throw them in too.

And Kate Steinle too (oh wait, he'd have to answer questions about Sanctuary Cities... can't have that!)

Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?

Perhaps the GOP response should be a national screening of that new Michael Bay movie?

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?

It should just be a camera pointed at an empty chair to symbolize how dead the current GOP's backwards ideology is.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?

AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen

Or for their response they can just have the shame nun from GoT come on and save us all the time of their response

Instead of a GOP response, can we just get about 30 minutes of Kylo Ren going emo with his light saber in a car lot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Or for their response they can just have the shame nun from GoT come on and save us all the time of their response

Even better

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe instead of a Response to the Union speech the GOP can just put a camera in an empty stadium somewhere so that everyone has a seat for everything?

AT&T Stadium in Dallas would be a perfect place... It's got plenty of seating, as well as a huge screen

Also, there is never any NFL football games there after December so we know scheduling conflicts wouldn't have been an issue.