Yeah yeah, we already know what you believe.
Maybe you can point out for the board what part of my previous post was "scientology stuff".
Thoughts on this
- Thread starter Bankerreturns
- Start date
Maybe you can point out for the board what part of my previous post was "scientology stuff".
Oh, I read it. I thought that at some point, you'd stop hiding from an easy question.
We know about your cult and their position on psych medicine. Pssssst....y'alls secrets have been out for a while now.
Maybe you should ask a question that actually has to do with the topic at hand, which is this particular bill. And giving my question a shot might be in your favor as well. But in the end, your question is silly, because nowhere in this post have I claimed the 2nd Amendment is the issue with this bill.
Yeah yeah, we already know what you believe.
P.S. ten bucks a month....how much did the cans cost? $800 an hour....gotta get across that BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM.
I'm not the one with a mental disease while paying for my own addiction.
We also know that science agrees with part of that position on psych medicine.
It's very much a part of this discussion. God forbid a topic divert to a related issue from the original post in a message board post. That never happens on here.
It's simple: You are against this measure because you claim it is unconstitutional. Yet there have been plenty of things that have been ruled constitutional over our history, that based on your reading of the Constitution, would be viewed as being unconstitutional.
The fact that you refuse to respond to that point and simply continue to say it doesn't have to do with the original post shows enough. It's the same reason you (and the others) have refused to even begin to discuss my question regarding health care/murder rate/gun ownership with the U.S. compared to our peer countries.
Yep, and for non-2nd Amendment issues. And yet you keep going on and on about the 2nd.....
It doesn't matter what amendment you think it violates. The fact is that your arguments about what is/isn't unconstitutional are not consistent.
You have no problem with a very loose reading and interpretation of some amendments, but then you want other amendments to have a very tight and black-and-white interpretation.
Sounds like our current SCOTUS.
I am not telling you what I want or politically prefer, I am telling you what will happen. That ain't even the same sport. I'd prefer SCOTUS get a case and rule the use of marijuana is covered by the same right to privacy (there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting the general use of weed, so the state can fvck off) that ushered in reproductive rights, but I know that is not going to happen.
You don't have to tell us again. You already have. You were against a mandatory, three-day waiting period. You claimed it was a barrier to our rights under the 2nd.
In other words, what I have said is accurate: you promote a very strict interpretation of the Constitution for some amendments, void of logic or reasoning behind it other than that it's the black-and-white interpretation of the words, but you have no problem with other amendments not having the same strict interpretation.
You have changed my mind. Not only will I support a three day waiting period for gun purchases, I also support a three day waiting period for granting bail (the judge must cool down), a three day period for news reporting (the reporter must coo down), a three day period to assemble (all you motherfvckers need to cool down)....
One last time: please give a rational argument to my claim as to what the courts would do in a challenge to this bill. Or for all practical purposes admit you are not able to formulate such argument....which is what I am currently going with until you prove otherwise.
Cute attempt, but it doesn't hold up.
In many cities/states, in order to assemble, you have to have a permit. In most places, those permits have to be requested weeks ahead of time. Due process? The government also doesn't have to act immediately on that. There is a time period in which they need to file charges. So your three day period to assemble is actually 15+ days of "cool down" already. Are you also claiming that is unconstitutional?
I think it would depend on what court rules on it. Frankly, I don't give a shit about how they would rule on it. We've already taken away the black-and-white interpretation of the 2nd. The important court refuses to use strict scrutiny on the 2nd. As a result, we've regulated guns to the extent, against what you believe the Constitution allows, that people of a certain age don't have the right, people who have completed their punishment for a crime don't have the right, people who work on certain property don't have the right, people can't carry them concealed without additional privileges, people can't have certain types of arms, etc. . Yet you think a three day waiting period is unconstitutional.
I've answered your question. Now, your turn.
Why do you use a strict interpretation of some amendment by not others? Why do you support the watering down or infringement of some Constitutional rights based on logic and rational thinking yet refuse to do so with other amendments?
And, of course, I am still waiting for you (or the others) to answer my question regarding your stance on mental healthcare/murder rate/gun access in the U.S. compared with our peer countries.
I do believe requiring a permit for certain assemblies is unconstitutional, and courts have generally agreed. Don't block traffic/shut down streets, don't use large speaker systems and a stage, and don't turn a park or public area into a pre-staged event and generally you do not need a permit. Pissed off at breaking news? March your ass down the sidewalk and it should be cool. Frankly I believe many permit requirements are an attempt to stifle speech, and am surprised you do not feel the same.
Arraignment = 48 hours here. Here we generally do it in 24 hours by video.
If you support his proposal, you probably should. Or you might as well shit in your hand, or however that saying goes.
I'm not sure I have seriously said a three day waiting period is unconstitutional. I think it is illogical, sure...because it assumes a high likelihood that someone purchasing a gun wants RIGHT NOW to hurt themselves or another. And we know that's bull.
Oh, and those other gun restrictions you list....please quote where I said such were unconstitutional (I won't hold my breath).
You will have to be extremely specific, as I am extremely specific in determining what I think. In any given case there is hundreds of years of precedence, legal history, common law, etc to consider. It's not black and white, I simply do not think that way.
There are plenty of assembly regulations that stand in courts. Most of them deal with the size of a protest. Unconstitutional, right?
Unconstitutional. It doesn't take 48 hours to file charges.
You've argued, in response to me in the past, that you can buy a car and drive away in ten minutes. As a result, you'll wait right there as they do a background check for a gun purchase, and it shouldn't be much longer than that.
That's exactly my point. You have no problem with regulations regarding concealing a weapon, yet you have a problem with having a waiting period for a gun purchase. The Constitution has been interpreted to mean that everyone (with regulations, shockingly) has a right to possess a gun (only certain ones, though, shockingly). It doesn't say they shouldn't be able to conceal them. It doesn't say they should be able to conceal them. It doesn't say they should have immediate access to them. It doesn't say they shouldn't have immediate access to them.
Your claim against having a mandatory waiting period contradicts your support of needing a license for a CCW, not being able to carry in many places, only being allowed to possess certain weapons, etc.
How can you support all of those restrictions on gun rights when the Constitution doesn't state those restrictions but you're against a waiting period because the Constitution doesn't mention one?
I thought Yags was freedom lover. Instead, he loves that idiot communist Mario's boy up in NY. What a bunch of idiots. This is why we have and need the electoral college.
Never figured you to be one to argue one procedure (arraignment) with another ("filing charges")
I touched on what assembly protocols pass constitutional muster. I also told you what does not, as in actually has been found to be bullshit in courts (prohibit without permits of spontaneous assembly). Yet you give some broad-brush, simpleton response.
Here's the bottom line: you are going on and on because you cannot refute my argument that the NY bill would be struck down by the courts. Which has not a goddamn thing to do with any of my personal beliefs on what is constitutional or not, or if I like the idea or not (I even said on its face it is a good idea). Your argument that laws and rulings change, while true, is specious in this example, as you damn well know what the courts would rule at this moment in time. I win, you lose. Here's what you get for second prize:
He wants the right to have a firearm as long as you don't have the right to..or at least is not willing to stand up for the rights of others he disagrees with.
Great bill there, tell a gay joke online and you can't have a firearm. Makes sense.
Never figured you to be one to argue one procedure (arraignment) with another ("filing charges")
I touched on what assembly protocols pass constitutional muster. I also told you what does not, as in actually has been found to be bullshit in courts (prohibit without permits of spontaneous assembly). Yet you give some broad-brush, simpleton response.
Here's the bottom line: you are going on and on because you cannot refute my argument that the NY bill would be struck down by the courts. Which has not a goddamn thing to do with any of my personal beliefs on what is constitutional or not, or if I like the idea or not (I even said on its face it is a good idea). Your argument that laws and rulings change, while true, is specious in this example, as you damn well know what the courts would rule at this moment in time. I win, you lose. Here's what you get for second prize:
Third place...you're fired!
Great movie.
Never figured you to be one to argue one procedure (arraignment) with another ("filing charges")
Arraignment? Are you this clueless? If you're booked on a Friday afternoon, there is a good chance that you won't have arraignment until Monday, well over the 24 or 48 hours listed. Is that unconstitutional? Of course it isn't.
The important aspect is the filing/pressing of charges. That is why police can detain you for fewer hours without charges being filed compared with the longer period they are allowed to detain you without having arraignment.
You've struggled throughout this entire thread. That is why you had to add "spontaneous" into your argument above.
The amendment makes no difference between a spontaneous assembly or any other. Why are you adding in that parameter?
Courts have upheld that assemblies of certain sizes, peaceful ones at that, require permits. Many times, those permit requests have to be filed weeks in advance. Based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it would make these permits unconstitutional based on the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment makes no claim about it pertaining to only "spontaneous" assembly. Christ. And you're the one talking about "simpleton"?
This is pathetic. It's as if you feel that you made such a strong argument, that you are trying to create an opponent to argue your stance with. I've never taken a stance on that bill. I've never argued that your claim that a court would strike it down is false. Hell, I've said I don't give a sh!t about the bill.
So why are you so adamant on trying to make me take a side I've never taken or don't have an opinion on? This is some Big Country type of logic.
You're claiming that you won some imaginative argument against somebody who has never argued against your stance, never argued your stance is wrong, and somebody who hasn't even given the issue much thought.
What I have pointed out and refuted you on is your conflicting interpretation of the Constitution depending what amendment it is.
Keep running from what I called you out on. I've said it numerous times throughout this thread. Nobody is contesting you on your belief that the bill would be struck down by a court. Why are you so desperate to argue otherwise and try to find somebody to take an opposing stance that doesn't exist?
Anyone who has read this thread knows why; you're trying to avoid what you were called out on.
That's why we do video these days. Since you are in the business of arguing what should be logical and new in the law, I bet we soon see a case where SCOTUS says "fvck you, use video and do it timely". On call judge on video, not black and white because the Founders could have never thought of it.
Nah, that's why I defined "spontaneous" without using that word: "Don't block traffic/shut down streets, don't use large speaker systems and a stage, and don't turn a park or public area into a pre-staged event and generally you do not need a permit." Get together a few folks, march down the sidewalk, you do not need a permit. Next time I will just use one word to sum it up. Got it.
The thread is named "Thoughts on This". Not "rifle's thoughts on everything else". Logically, when you replied to me I thought you were replying to my "thoughts on this". Not a bunch of other shit. Frankly, if you don't give a shit then why bother chiming in? You are being that guy at the bar that sticks his nose into a conversation and starts rambling.
Funny, it looks to me and a few others you are doing the same thing: you assumed I was opposed due only to the 2nd Amendment, I wasn't, and then you got called out you had to avoid that and so you went off on a tangent.
What does any of that have to do with your attempt to claim that I confused "arraignment" with the filing/pressing of charges relating to detaining somebody? Nothing. That's what I thought. In other words, I didn't confuse the two.
And that is exactly my point! Get 50 people together to walk down the sidewalk or stand in a park, and you now need a permit (which many times, has to be requested weeks in advance). Why aren't you claiming that is unconstitutional? The 1st Amendment states you have a right to peacefully assemble. Why should you need to request privilege to exercise that right weeks ahead of time? According to your reading of the 2nd, which is what I have called you out on in this thread, you should also argue that needing a permit to assemble is unconstitutional.
It's very much part of this discussion, because I am calling you out for being inconsistent in your interpretations of the Constitution. You are against the bill in question, because you argue it is unconstitutional. Yet you are not against many other bills that have been passed even though they should be viewed as unconstitutional if you use the same (consistency) view of the amendments.
Calling you out for lack of consistency in your arguments about what is/isn't unconstitutional is very much fair game in this thread.
What are you talking about? Are you just posting sh!t in the hopes that people aren't really paying much attention to the discussion, and in turn, making them think you are posting valid arguments by posting anything random?
It doesn't matter if you're opposed to this bill on the 1st, 2nd, or 20th Amendment (as I previously said). The fact is that you are opposed to this bill, because you believe it is unconstitutional based on a certain way people can interpret the Constitution. However, you've failed to use that same interpretation of the Constitution on other amendments. That inconsistency is what I have called you out on. It is what you've ran from. It is what you refused to acknowledge.
One has to assume that Raoul is arguing with Yags over something foolish, right? If so, not sure why anybody would bother wasting time arguing with Yags or Greed. Even though you can easily defeat either of them, neither will ever admit defeat, nor will they allow you to get the last word.
Because you cons crave any opportunity to lie to someone you disagree with. I hope to be around when you cons realize you can just as easily lie to your fellow cons. It'll be fun times.
I've said I do not believe in a certain philosophy in interpreting the Amendments. I'm neither a total Originalist nor a total Non-Originialist (just to keep it brief and simple). I was clear about that back in post 55. So fvck, I guess you win. Here's your prize:
Last edited:
You would assume correctly, and I am only doing so because I think rifle is a smart guy. But fvck me running, I am not even sure what or why he is arguing.
neither is he. he's become one of the worst posters on the board. he argues dumb shit just to argue. he posts diatribes few spend the time to read. the fvcker has a mental issue. . . but, then again, all you liberal cocksuckers do, his is just worse.
Exactly my point which I have stated many times. You are inconsistent in your interpretations of the Constitution. You base it, based on what you've argued for over the years on here, on simply what you personally prefer for your lifestyle. It is void of logic and intellectual honesty.
"I like guns, so don't you dare to regulate anyone's ability to have them, even for a brief period, because the Constitution gives us that right."
yet . . .
"I don't really care if certain people can't vote - in fact I think it is smart that the founding fathers only wanted land owning males to vote - so regulating and restricting who can vote is fine by me."
yet . . .
"I believe in due process, but we should be able to detain people who we haven't charged with any crime for days at a time."
I get it. You're mad that I never reciprocated the obsession you had with me for many years. I'm sorry that you being a hillbilly doesn't appeal to me. I'm sorry that after many years of trying to hide your true colors, cheeto has made it safe for you to now do so. I'd be mad, too. At the end of the day, your kind still won't be accepted by the majority of Americans. You'll still be stuck being a hillbilly, claiming to be a CFO instead of the accounts receivable rep that you are, and still be living in West Virginia. I'd be despondent, too. You weren't accepted by your own fans on the wvu board, so you ran over here years ago begging for acceptance.
How is it so hard for you to see? How many attempts will you have to make to piggyback on other posters agreeing with them in the hopes they accept you? It's been hundreds upon hundreds of time, yet they still don't acknowledge your existence or respond to your posts where you quote them. Herdman, Dreh, WV-Fan, Big Country, etc. . . . they don't even interact with you. You try so many one-liners in threads and nobody acknowledges you. You're the kid who sits down at the lunch table where nobody knows your name, tries jumping into their inside jokes, and nobody knows why the fvck you are there.
haha, i obviously hit a nerve with that one. you're a mere shell of your former character. perhaps it's time for yet another name and character change, the current ones have become so cliche . . .
i know, let's try the name you use to call me but then got all pissy and cried foul when we found out it was a name of one of your relatives!
Oh, you mean when you claimed it was my father and it was actually a second uncle (or possibly second cousin twice removed) who I, like just about any second uncle or second cousin twice removed, have/had never met?
You tried Googling me during your obsession, saw some website which is known for not validating info and claimed I may be related to a person, then assumed it was my father.
Yeah, that one was almost as embarrassing as when you said you were going to call Aaron Perkins' employer and get him fired, because you thought he had used your refinancing and/or mortgage information to give me personal information on you; info that I didn't even have but just made you believe that I did.
You must be watching closely. I’m not on here to build self esteem like you. I just enjoy watching everyone mock you while you make an ass of yourself (and your boys Greed, cuntry etc)
Look at you jumping at somebody finally engaging you. I hope you had a towel handy when you saw that orange notification light up in the top right of your screen.
Now, run along and post another few hundred time before somebody mocks you for being a useless, non-contributing, annoying, ass-kissing/begging for attention, dork.
you poor thing. only thing i recall saying about your father was only way you knew him was by his CB handle. obviously, i was making a joke. the website you reference clearly referenced the name cleatus was your uncle. that was pretty damn funny . . . you calling me cleatus when you had an uncle of the same name then you getting all pissy over me posting it. good times.
none of what i've done is any worse than you facebook stalking my wife, children, sister, niece, etc. but, you're well known for that, you've done it multiple times to multiple people who've posted on this website over the years. i've attempted to find information on two people over the years, found out both of them are probably pretty good dudes outside of this forum. they sure try like hell to be dicks when posting here, though . . . well, the one diplays various characters depending on what i'm not sure, but fairly entertaining, nonetheless. the other just likes to argue and gets all pissy over simpleton shit.
Liar. Those sites don't list people by exact association. None of them list any family lineage by "father," "second uncle," etc.. They list people you may be related to based on linked. You thought it was my father. You said as much. When I researched to see who it was, it was somebody way down the list.
Those sites will use all sorts of things to claim "may be related." If you had an apartment in college and another person lived there before or after you, many times those people will be listed under "family" or "may be related to" due to the same address having been used at some point.
Speaking of your niece, is she 18 yet?
Ha! As with half the things I post here, that is just me being a smartass.
Anyone's ability to have a gun? Are you nuts? Show me where I have said that.
she's 20, maybe 21. what's it matter, you've stated in the past you're in as much a pedophile. "no hair on the infield, roll them over, play in the mud", or something of the sort.
i'm almost sure it indicated he was your uncle, maybe not. maybe it was you crying about him being your uncle. i don't recall. maybe i did say he was your father just to get a rise out of you, don't recall. at any rate, you sure did get whiny about it. you've even cried on this board about someone posting your personal information on the old board. we both knew who you were referring to, lol.
never did hear me crying about you posting my personal information, though. hell, i seem to recall you throwing my name out there as some sort of great poster because i didn't get all pissed off when people like 30cat did get all up in arms when their info was posted. you, on the other hand . . . poor guy.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
-
