| |
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,468
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
 |  Posted: 3/1/2013 1:09:18 PM
You were stating an opinion. You do the same thing in every thread.
She simply restated the condensed opinion of Heller.
You twisted it into an attack on her; you do the same thing in every thread with anyone you disagree with.
You know what also needs to be defined? (Okay, I'll go with you know what else needs to not be completely ignored?)
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"
Another person completely ignorant of Heller. | |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 1:35:50 PM
And what a stupid statist you are. What makes me think I should be "allowed" to vote? I am a property owner and a business owner.
Now, if you would care to discuss my statement in a rational faction, I'm all for it. Let me help you...you could have easily responded like this:
lynlam let me ask you a question what makes you think that by virtue of the fact one owns property or is a business owner they automatically have the intelligence to make a "relevant" vote over folks who don't own property or are a business owner?
Oh wait a minute. I think I know now. You think if only business owners etc vote they will vote your way because that is the "right" way.
Statements like you made are not the type that can be debated or discussed. It was clearly a statement saying I'm better then others and I "know" what is "right" for the country because I'm a property owner and business owner. Bah! Anyone who thinks like that is a stupid elitist. "Stupid" being the key word.
| |
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 1:48:21 PM
Liability for gun owners whose guns are stolen, requiring insurance, etc. all are about intimidating gun owners with onerous costs and the threat of fines and jail if something beyond their control goes wrong.
It's absolutely NOT about intimidating gun owners. It's about setting up a screening system by private entities most able to assess risk. They could do this by requiring certification of mental competency, running criminal record checks, requiring access to medical records, requiring safety classes, proof of safe storage, etc. They do screenings all the time for things like life insurance, high risk automobile insurance, home owner's insurance, etc. It wouldn't be foolproof but it sure would have helped keep legally owned guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza or James Holmes. If you are being actively treated for mental illness, not insurable. If your physical shows evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, not insurable. If you have a PFA, not insurable. Not insurable? No gun for you. |
|
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,468
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 2:14:24 PM
lynlam let me ask you a question what makes you think that by virtue of the fact one owns property or is a business owner they automatically have the intelligence to make a "relevant" vote over folks who don't own property or are a business owner?
Lynlam knows the US Constitution & its history. You do not, apparently.
Not insurable? No gun for you.
You still haven't read Heller or Miller yet. Unless you are willing to do the same for the 1st, you can't do it for the 2nd.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
| |
|
CarefreeSadie
PeaNut
PeaNut 311,391
April 2007
Posts: 177
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 2:19:18 PM
So the government makes all the gun owners carry liability insurance in case something really bad happens with that gun? Kind of like car insurance, but we all carry uninsured motorists insurance too. So that would then mean that every single person in the U.S. would eventually need to carry uninsured gun liability insurance to cover for the criminals who would not carry their legally specified gun liability insurance, correct? Geez we ARE all gonna end up insurance poor. | |
|
~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea
PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 17,551
Layouts: 106
Loc: Hawkeye Nation
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 2:20:35 PM
Lynlam knows the US Constitution & its history.
I beg to differ. Lynlam knows HER version of the Constitution and HER revisionist history and she's no smarter than dozens other women on this board. She likes to tell us that she is, but we humor her that way.
|
|
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 3/1/2013 2:27:38 PM
You still haven't read Heller or Miller yet. Unless you are willing to do the same for the 1st, you can't do it for the 2nd.
Contrary to what the omniscient voices in your head told you, I am familiar with those cases. I'm interested how you think either holding is relevant to a potential insurance requirement. Though Heller established an individual right to own firearms, it also established that such right was not absolute and subject to restrictions SUCH AS limits on the mentally ill, conditions for sale, etc. Requiring insurance is just establishing a condition precedent for sale. |
|
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,468
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 2:30:47 PM
Wrong. Lynlam is completely correct in her observance of voting laws in the first 50 or so years after this country won its independence from Britain.
Apparently a few of you either failed, slept through, or never took a civics or US government class. | |
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,468
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 2:36:56 PM
Contrary to what the omniscient voices in your head told you, I am familiar with those cases. I'm interested how you think either holding is relevant to a potential insurance requirement. Though Heller established an individual right to own firearms, it also established that such right was not absolute and subject to restrictions SUCH AS limits on the mentally ill, conditions for sale, etc. Requiring insurance is just establishing a condition precedent for sale.
Wow, you claim to be familiar but you haven't actually read the decision, have you? It says very plainly regulations are permitted, and it says something very specific about the First and the Second's relationship to the First -- and why what you propose is unconstitutional in very plain language a fifth grader can comprehend, but you cannot.
"Voices in my head" .... Lol, at least I can read a SCOTUS decision. You demonstrated you cannot.
You actually think you can take someone's right to self defense away from them. How about insuring free speech or religion? How about mandatory insurance required before you post on NSBR in case someone sues you for slander or defamation or bullying?
Your whole premise is moronic. | |
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 3/1/2013 2:57:45 PM
"Voices in my head" .... Lol, at least I can read a SCOTUS decision. You demonstrated you cannot.
Apparently not since you seem to be under the misapprehension that anything other than the plain language of the holding has any precedential value. The holding in Heller establishes only that an individual has the right to own a firearm outside participation in a militia. |
|
|
desertpea
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 359,474
January 2008
Posts: 2,468
Layouts: 41
Loc: Moving!
| Posted: 3/1/2013 3:10:08 PM
Lol, you are glancing over a Wikipedia page and not reading the decision itself. That was the main part of the decision, but there were a slew of other legislation it struck down as unconstitutional.
Two pages ago, you wondered why no one addressed the militia part -- it is because the SCOTUS already did.
You cannot prohibit gun ownership. Maybe you should explain why you think you are such a special snowflake that you get to decide what rights law abiding citizens need to give up. Next you'll be posting threads that anyone criticizing a Democrat should be fined and jailed, lol. | |
|
~*kristina*~
Typical Liberal Pea
PeaNut 55,230
November 2002
Posts: 17,551
Layouts: 106
Loc: Hawkeye Nation
| Posted: 3/1/2013 3:21:38 PM
Maybe you should explain why you think you are such a special snowflake that you get to decide what rights law abiding citizens need to give up.
You might address that same sentiment to your pal Lynlam when she says she would like voting rights for only for property and business owners. What makes her that special snowflake? |
|
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 3/1/2013 3:48:25 PM
Lol, you are glancing over a Wikipedia page and not reading the decision itself. That was the main part of the decision, but there were a slew of other legislation it struck down as unconstitutional.
Now you're the one who is being cute. I rescanned it today, just as I read it the first time, in its original form. And what Justice Scalia had to say about the prefatory clause has bearing on my question only in that he agreed it is not meaningless. While I agree with Justice Steven's interpretation as articulated in the dissent, my point in asking is that it sets out a purpose and said purpose is almost always ignored in these discussions. I don't think that anyone rational has ever argued that if you want to have a gun, you must be in a militia. However, to ignore the entire purpose of the amendment and pretend the right is all about how much you enjoy skeet shooting and shooting pie tins in your backyard is disingenuous.
I'm out for the rest of the evening, carry on. |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 3/1/2013 4:01:44 PM
You keep saying things like this. Just how do you know what the Founding Fathers were thinking or intended? Unless you were there your personal interpretation is just that and nothing more.
This argument is an absolute cop out.
Have you ever heard of the Federalist Papers?
Did you know James Madison documented in detail the discussions had during the summer of 1787 when the Founding Fathers met to draft the Constitution?
Do you know anything about our country's history prior to the Constitutional Government established when the Constitution was ratified?
Do you know the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the words chosen by Jefferson when he listed our grievances to King George III- why those colonists dared to risk their lives just to sign a treasonous document to break ties with the British government and go to war against the largest military at the time?
Do you know the reason behind the Articles of Confederation being written the way they were and why that plan for government failed?
There are plenty of primary historical resources that give us the factual discussions and arguments that occurred during the Constitutional Convention and the year after spent ratifying the document. We don't need a time machine or someone who miraculously still alive since 1787 to give us first hand knowledge. To say "you weren't there and that means you don't know what the Founding Fathers thought" is like saying we can't truly be certain of the law of gravity. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:13:57 PM
You might address that same sentiment to your pal Lynlam when she says she would like voting rights for only for property and business owners. What makes her that special snowflake?
This tells me you haven't actually read Lynlam's explanation because she already gave a very polite and thoughtful statement on this very question. But I never had the illusion that you took time to really listen to anyone else but yourself. | |
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,394
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:34:33 PM
Except that all your "counter arguments" were things I actually agreed with, thereby rendering your point useless. Sorry if you can't handle some who can think logically.
No, my counter arguments prove that you are hypocrite.
You keep saying things like this. Just how do you know what the Founding Fathers were thinking or intended? Unless you were there your personal interpretation is just that and nothing more.
Um...Federalist papers? Historical records? Plethora of books written and disected throughout our history? Tens of thousands of pages of opinions? And having visited places like the Archives, Smithsonian, Mt Vernon, Monticello, Independence Hall, Colonial Williamsburg - and really truly delved into that time period and what was really occurring beyond what our 8th grade civics teachers taught us. Really, what a nonsensical statement that is, Dynalady. It's quite fascinating really, to go to someplace like Williamsburg, immerse yourself in the Revolutionary City dramas, soak it all in, and then go and read some of the accounts of what happened in Philidelphia when the Constitution was being written, and to put the two things together to understand why the founders wrote some of what they wrote. Or to read about the Aricles of Confederation and how they failed and how those failures were addressed in the new Constitution.
The ignroance and arrogance of todays society is to believe that we have somehow evolved beyond what our founders wrote. That is completely wrong. What they wrote was timeless and an amazing roadmap for human dignity and freedom. Flawless? Not at all...and they knew that. Hence the amendment process. They were much more evolved than we are now in many ways. We have devolved, there is no dobut.
To Krazy and Kristina:
I already gave a response. Try reading it. And then try to see that I am not advocating that we go back to that, but that I sometimes see the wiseness of it and have thought about it recently in light of what we are going through now.
|
 
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?
PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,394
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:42:46 PM
There are plenty of primary historical resources that give us the factual discussions and arguments that occurred during the Constitutional Convention and the year after spent ratifying the document. We don't need a time machine or someone who miraculously still alive since 1787 to give us first hand knowledge. To say "you weren't there and that means you don't know what the Founding Fathers thought" is like saying we can't truly be certain of the law of gravity.
Once again...bravo Mrs T. You always say things much better than I do. |
"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge
Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill. | |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:44:57 PM
The ignroance and arrogance of todays society is to believe that we have somehow evolved beyond what our founders wrote.
So very true.
What goes on in our government today is proof that we have devolved. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves watching the deterioration of this Republic. Behaviors on BOTH sides of the isle repeatedly prove our government has deteriorated and lost sight of its true purpose. | |
|
jodster70
To the right, To the right
PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 5,619
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:46:15 PM
DesertPea,
You and I agree on this issue, but your arrogance knows no bounds. I've personally known Sarah for 5+ years (IRL), and I can guarantee that she not only has read, but understands the decisions you are referring to.
There are all sorts of gray areas like interpretation and perception and you are not allowing for them. Just because you read it and see it one way, doesn't mean that she interprets it that same way.
She is one of the smartest and most fair people that I know. We almost never agree on issues, but have a blast together because we listen to what each other has to say, even though we don't agree. |
**Jody**
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry | |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/1/2013 4:50:17 PM
Once again...bravo Mrs T. You always say things much better than I do.
LOL! I think you did an awesome job articulating the same thing. I was nodding my head in agreement with your response. It really worries me to know so many Americans seem to know so little about our nation's foundation. It's an awesome and fascinating story we have and it's a shame so many people think we've outgrown the need for the wisdom and vision of our Founding Fathers. | |
|
Enough
BucketHead
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 656
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 3/2/2013 11:14:00 AM
I was simply stating an undeniable fact.
Turns out it WAS deniable and not a fact, after all. 
| |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 3/4/2013 3:19:09 PM
"Sometimes I do think our founders were exactly right when they limited the right to vote to property owners (taking women and blacks out of this discussion, that is not the point). I only recently began thinking about this, as I see more and more of our society becoming dependent on government handouts, which means that more and more demands are being made on property and business owners to give up more of what they work for to support those who are not working for it. The tax paying, job creating business and property owners are becoming outnumbered by people who have discovered that with their vote, they can vote themselves money from the treasury. It promotes the soft bigotry of low expecations, and strips away our drive and need to become the property and business owners of tomorrow."
I was going to let this die but then I thought no way. I'm going to pull a Mrs. Tyler and get in the last word.
First Mrs. Tyler you think the above statement is a "very polite and thoughtful statement" on lynlam's arguement on why only property owners and business owners should be allowed to vote. Really. Its stupid.
Here is why its stupid. We all have "skin in the game" and therefore we should all have a say in how this country is run. No one is going to get everything they want. That is why there is a word called compromise. But it seems to be a dirty word in Washington right now. On all sides.
lynlam is pissed because her guys didn't win the last two presidental elections. And in lynlam's mine the ONLY way this country should be run is her way. She gets upset and frustrated that we all can't see things here way. Well she is entitled to her opinion. I and a majority of voters disagree with her vision of this country. So for now the country is not interested in lynlam's vision of the country. So deal with it.
Just like the ones who didn't like Bush. I was never so happy as when he got on the plane and went back to Texas. But while I disliked the man and his policies it never occurred to me that somehow we should put up roadblocks aimed at the folks who voted for Bush. I would never make a statment like lynlam did about who should be allowed to vote. Like I said only a stupid elitist would make a remark like lynlam did on who should be allowed to vote. And her explanation above does nothing to change my mine.
I decided to find what the % of people who "vote themselves handouts". As of 10/15/2012 4.3M people are on welfare, 46.7M are on food stamps, and 5.6M are on unemployment. It has been written that, because of the "great" recession, more people are on food stamps then ever before so that 46.7M kind of makes sense. These numbers were posted by the US Dept of Health and Human Services so I suspect that are fairly accurate. With the exception of the food stamps, those folks on Welfare are sure going to be able to "vote themselves handouts" aren't they.
Do people take advantage of the system. Yes, but then so the folks on the other end of the spectrum. How many millionaires and corporations find ways of not paying taxes? But people like lynlam only get upset with the poor and not the rich that find a way to game the system.
As to the Founding Fathers, unless you were there and part of the discussions you don't know why they did what they did. Yes Mrs. Tyler I know you have listed all these writings. But what they wrote and what actually happened could very well be two different things. This group of men had to wonder how history would portray them so they may have not been forthcoming in what they wrote. And I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
The way I look at the Founding Fathers it was a group of men who started a chain of events that changed the country and the world forever. They also had to come up with the framework of starting a country. That couldn't have been easy as there was no "Starting a Country for Dummies" book to refer to. I think they did a great job with a couple of glitches. The glitches being slavery and women voting. Eventually that was taken care of.
Which brings me to the other stupid statement made on this thread. "Ignorance and arrogance of today's society is to believe that we have somehow evolved beyond what our founders wrote". You betcha we have evolved. Otherwise there still would be slavery and women would not be allowed to vote. And as a country we will continue to evolve as well we should.
| |
|
dynalady
My soul is fed with needle and thread
PeaNut 25,620
December 2001
Posts: 20,161
Layouts: 49
Loc: Sweet Home Chicago
 | Posted: 3/4/2013 4:39:22 PM
And as a country we will continue to evolve as well we should.
And as the Founding Fathers fully expected us to, and provided for, by including the process of amending the Constitution to evolve along with us. |
   
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/4/2013 5:01:11 PM
First Mrs. Tyler you think the above statement is a "very polite and thoughtful statement" on lynlam's arguement on why only property owners and business owners should be allowed to vote. Really. Its stupid.
I said she gave a thoughtful and polite answer to that question which she did. Just because you disagree with her does not mean her answer wasn't thought out and politely typed out in spite of the fact that people were very rudely demanding her to expand on her statement.
But it says a lot about how you judge people based on whether their ideas match with your own. They're only polite and thoughtful when their opinion is the same as yours. I Gotcha.
| |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 3/4/2013 5:06:08 PM
And as the Founding Fathers fully expected us to, and provided for, by including the process of amending the Constitution to evolve along with us.
Sure, but, and this is entirely my personal opinion based on what I know of our history and what I've read from our Founding Fathers, They never intended the Bill of Rights to be Amended. Those first ten Amendments were added in order to ensure the rest of the Constitution was ratified. They were specifically established to protect WE THE PEOPLE from the government. The freedoms and rights they included in that list were added specifically because they felt that those liberties were the most important and that they were INHERENT rights- rights that belong to citizens that no government has the right or authority to ever revoke. They were also included because they were rights that had been trampled upon by the previous governing body over the colonies. I see amendments added beyond the Bill of Rights as ways we evolve and change with the times, but the Bill of Rights itself was written in a timeless manner to protect the inherent rights of all citizens in protecting themselves from our own government. | |
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 3/6/2013 9:05:28 AM
Ah Mrs.Tyler there is no "gotcha". Lynlam made a statement and it was a stupid statement and I told her. She got all high & mighty because I called her a stupid elitist. But she does have selective memory and forgets how many times she calls people morons. So my response to her stupid statement was in keeping with her responses to others.
I had dinner was an old friend a couple of weeks ago. I don't see her much these days. While sitting around the dinner table she very calmly starts to tell us she is positive the US Government is responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. So I said you think the US Government attacked its own citizens. Oh yes she said. And the government paid for the flying lessons for the guys who brought down the Towers on 9/11...I have to say I didn't see that coming. But my friend is one the nicest people you'll ever meet.
Of course this idea is silly but it would never enter my head to tell her so because of how she treats other people. So I said ok and we changed the subject.
Maybe if lynlam would quit calling people morons when they don't agree or see the world as she does she just might get a different response to her statements.
For every action there is a reaction. Something to ponder...
| |
|
