02-23-2009, 08:39 PM | #51 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
It is my studied opinion of Cali's post that he is probably posting mostly in jest, laughing at us for taking him seriously. So we may actually be the pinheads for ever taking any post seriously.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-23-2009, 09:14 PM | #52 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
That said, I never give liberals the benefit of the doubt.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
02-23-2009, 09:33 PM | #53 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Cali is very bright and capable of sticking to his board persona, as I have it on other authority, he's not really like this in real life. So I know he's laughing his arse off at us.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-23-2009, 09:35 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
If you do not believe that the right to bear arms is absolute, then we are in agreement on that point and you can begin working to persuade Waters of the same. That then takes us to step 2 of the analysis: where then is the appropriate line? I have noted that the Supreme Court (including the current Court, with an opinion from one of the two most conservative members of the Court) has drawn the line in a way that excludes automatic weapons from protection. You may disagree, and you may even be right to disagree, but I have yet to hear anything from you better than "because I said so!" |
|
02-23-2009, 09:41 PM | #55 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
In one sense, our rights are whatever the five members of Scotus say they are, and if they agree to limit them, unless we take up arms against them, then that's what they are. I don't agree the government should have the right to limit the Second Amendment, unless you're arguing citizens don't need bazookas, or tanks, or nuclear bombs. So that's a limit in theory. I am aware of the case law about the balancing of rights, but i stand against the government erosion or intrusion into our basic liberties.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-23-2009, 10:00 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Why should the government have a right to limit bazookas or tanks or nuclear bombs? |
|
02-23-2009, 11:05 PM | #57 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Maybe they should be entitled to bazookas, but tanks and nuclear bombs are not the sort of thing you keep in your home.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-23-2009, 11:20 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I am just trying to understand where and why you draw the line you draw. |
|
02-23-2009, 11:25 PM | #59 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I haven't clearly thought about the line because it's already drawn further away than makes sense to me. I don't believe suitcase nuclear bombs are a reality, so we might as we discuss photon disrupter arrays while you're at it. Under international law some of those weapons are illegal for any nation to possess, so perhaps as long as international law does not go haywire, a limitation on the person would be anything that a nation state has agreed not to possess within its own arsenal.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 02-23-2009 at 11:27 PM. |
02-23-2009, 11:32 PM | #60 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Quote:
That's a very simple standard. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|