And I can’t believe that you are still making that argument after I shot you down twice.
Why don’t you just write one yourself and see how far you get? I was thinking of telling you that on the SAM thread. At least James actually wrote an entire new constitution proposing some very real fixes. You keep saying that you are smarter than he was so prove it and do even better - WRITE ONE.
I could and will and it doesn’t matter.
The preamble is super-cool though.
What you don’t understand is that I have both feet in this world … then I have one foot in this world and the other into the beyond. And then I have both feet in the beyond and shit gets really crazy.
I can guarantee you, james never experienced this his entire life.
Then keep it. Plagiarism isn’t an issue.
Try to take at least one of them out of your mouth.
I hope not for his sake. He said he didn’t like people having to take medications.
I can tell you if you put any of that multi-dimensional spiritualism into it - forget it.
It isn’t a constitution if no one agrees to it let alone 200 million.
I don’t know what to say to you man.
James had zero idea of the spirit world.
You as well.
I don’t know what to say to you man.
Everyone lives forever. They have been alive forever.
Everyone decided from ‘creation’ to have me.
I’m here.
I think you might have a problem with those two statements together.
Just focus on your version of how a good constitution for millions of people should be worded. And don’t forget that around 200 million people have to agree to it else there will be no constituency for the nation. James’ solution for that was to have it for a small group that replicates into a huge grouping. What is your solution (and also don’t forget about “arms”)?
I don’t think you understand the word “right” in the constitution or the bill of “rights”…
Everyone gets it.
According to the constitutions use of the word “right”, everyone is entitled to a free nuclear warhead.
Not just a blunderbuss.
But even when they wrote the constitution back then, did they give everyone in the US a free blunderbuss.
Even back then, they were full of shit.
And they still are full of shit.
So, it doesn’t matter what I write (just like it didn’t matter what they wrote)
People are still going to ignore it.
Where does it say “free?”
“Right” means everyone, everyone means free; otherwise everyone is a meaningless term.
It’s implied.
the text of the law says that the right to bear arms can’t be infringed
that means that if you got a gun in your hand, nobody can take it from you
doesn’t mean everyone gets a gun
idiot
“ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The keep part is what you’re talking about … the bear part is in there as well!
Idiot!
so keep means receive in idiot land?
No. Keep means what you said, “nobody can take it from you”. Bear means that you have it.
Again, idiot!
Read my post again.
so what part of that means someone has to give you a gun?
Because it’s a fucking right!!!
It’s a right to bear arms, not a privilege, a right.
Everywhere else in the constitution and declaration, right is defined as EVERYONE!
That means that (by the letter of the law) I can walk up to the pentagon and ask them for my nuke. If they don’t give it to me, I’m constitutionally entitled to hang them all as traitors.
You see where this is going phon?
The constitution is toilet paper.
seems pretty obvious to everyone but you that the right is that a gun can’t be taken from you
The text says this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Some of course read it this way:
[size=50] "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,[/size] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Others read it more this way:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,[size=50] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[/size]
I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.
Let’s call this the “psychology of objectivism”.
No, that’s the “keep” part, not the “bear” part. The “bear” part is the RIGHT to have it.
Any idiot who’s a constitutional scholar knows I’m right on the law and the usage.
lol
ok ecmandu
pat pat pat
please notify me of how your legal battle goes
all the way up to the supreme court
requesting your right to be given a gun
If the Supreme Court refused me my free nuke, according to the constitution, I could have them all hung as traitors as well.
But let’s nitpick, like you tried to do. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you have the right to USE arms!!!
You’d have to look at other passages like “provide for the common defense … all enemies foreign and domestic”
We have been through this before too. Ecmandu, you seem to have a short memory.
The right “to bear” means legally have permission to have in possession.
As explained before a right to own is NOT a guarantee to own. It means that others are not free to take it away.
Right to life does NOT mean the government must keep you alive. It means that others are NOT allowed to take it away.
The right to pursue happiness is NOT mean the government pursues it for you. It means that others are NOT allowed to prevent your pursuit.
A right merely means an unimpeded permit restricting others from interference.
Unimpeded permit to own and bear arms restricting others from interference.
Unimpeded permit to live restricting others from interference.
Unimpeded permit to pursue happiness restricting others from interference.
Currently in the US Constitution, SCOTUS decides to what degree proposed laws meet the constitutional requirements and rights therein. To do that they have to try to see what was originally intended (and not be stupid about it).
If you want the word to mean something else, I suggest you leave it out of YOUR CONSTITUTION - still waiting for that.