War Room OT Discussion v5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where do I see signs of being threatened? You and your friends cannot debate me on the points so you concoct some nonsense about me being an alt.

What points do you think anyone can't debate you on? This is the OT thread. Quipling just made a joke about you, and then I just pointed out that you're a liar. That's not connected to any other discussion.
 
Account bets aren't actually allowed here. From all appearances though you don't seem to be a retread.

How reliable are the mod tools, though?

I ask because I remember El Viejito/ProBoxingInsidr not showing up as the same guy, but I know for a fact that they are.
 
How reliable are the mod tools, though?

I ask because I remember El Viejito/ProBoxingInsidr not showing up as the same guy, but I know for a fact that they are.

I can't be certain that he's not a retread, I just haven't seen anything which would definitely indicate he is one.
 
People who cannot have a rational discussion without jumping to conclusions just ruin forum atmosphere. The above is further proof of it.

The mods or whoever can check me. I've never been registered on this forum before and it's hilarious to me how threatened you are by it. So because, you know, I'm me and I know the truth...it's easy to make this bet.

Stop being a pussy and take the bet. Get HomerThompson in on it too. You accuse easy and then when it comes to the crunch you hide? Why not just, you know, post and have discussions like a normal human being? Anyway, stop wasting the forum's bandwidth and take the bet already. Show your dignity <45>



You can take the bet too, come on ;).
Joined: saturday


Why would anyone bet you anything lol
 
Joined: saturday

Why would anyone bet you anything lol

Retread or not, one of the things I don't get is people seeing a forum with 50 people who agree with them on literally every issue and making the same posts word for word that they would and deciding, "I gotta get in on this."
 
Retread or not, one of the things I don't get is people seeing a forum with 50 people who agree with them on literally every issue and making the same posts word for word that they would and deciding, "I gotta get in on this."
It's to combat the leftist lunacy that is controlling these boards. I've seen multiple posters talking about how it's a left wing circle jerk in here now.
 
"
The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling still looms large today because it left open a lot of questions that are now at issue. Consider semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 rifle, which has been used in a number of high-profile shootings, including the deadly massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. Are bans on this kind of weapon allowed under Heller?

On Monday, the Supreme Court let Connecticut’s ban on such weapons remain. It did the same in December after an effort to overturn a similar ban in Highland Park, Illinois. That doesn’t mean the court is embracing these bans, only that it’s put off ruling on them to another day. If the court takes them up, and at some point it surely will, its decision will come back to Scalia’s famous opinion in the Heller case.

And how the justices would rule on the constitutionality of owning an AR-15 is up in the air. Despite his deserved conservative reputation, Scalia left some gifts for liberals in his Heller ruling. He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

The issue that Scalia left future courts to grapple with is what constitutes a protected weapon. He wrote that the Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use. What he didn’t say in the opinion—and what the court has deferred ruling on—is whether an AR-15 fits the bill for a common weapon. On one hand, it’s certainly not rare. There are more than a million in circulation. On the other hand, it’s not as ubiquitous as ordinary rifles and handguns. At some point, the John Roberts court will wrestle with the questions Scalia left unanswered, or the justices will leave it to the political process."

http://www.newsweek.com/antonin-sca...rt-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460


Thanks. Are we discussing something about this or...?
 
It's to combat the leftist lunacy that is controlling these boards. I've seen multiple posters talking about how it's a left wing circle jerk in here now.

Two-thirds of the threads on the first page were started by right-wingers. The group is definitely more right-leaning than the country as a whole. Maybe those guys should go out into the world and combat leftist lunacy.
 
You said rights. Just pointing out that there is no specific right to a semi-auto rifle.

No clue what you think the 2nd Amendment prohibits.

But hey, might makes right. If SCOTUS ruled it was ok to ban some words because there's other words that work then you'd have no right to use them. And that would be ok with you because it takes a Supreme Court judge to read and understand the Bill of Rights. Nevermind that most of the time they have large disagreements. If you want to view things in that way that's your choice. I'll view it in terms of the 2nd being pretty damn clear in prohibiting the federal government from telling people what arms they can and can't keep and bear. And ultimately, if enough people go along with whatever, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution says.

I think it's pretty clear why SCOTUS keeps balking at these cases. They don't have an interest in affirming what's obvious and they don't have a rationalization to prohibit semi-autos. By your own link one test is the gun being in common use. Well, when you add up all the semi-autos they're pretty fucking common. To single out one particular firearm that has no unique functionality and calling it unusual is indefensible. So just counting up AR's fails basic logic, even if one were to try to argue that model is unusual (in spite of a million or more being out there and it probably having the largest or second largest after-market for parts and accessories).
 
Retread or not, one of the things I don't get is people seeing a forum with 50 people who agree with them on literally every issue and making the same posts word for word that they would and deciding, "I gotta get in on this."
And then they feel the need to band together via pm'sand derail the forum....
 
I think it's pretty clear why SCOTUS keeps balking at these cases. They don't have an interest in affirming what's obvious and they don't have a rationalization to prohibit semi-autos.

They haven't taken up the case because 4 different appellate courts came to the same conclusion.
 
Ford Dogs.

The former Mayor of Toronto, and former living man, Rob Ford.

rob_ford_summer.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x707.jpg


Combine that with his wacky hot dog related antics, and you've got Ford Dogs.

Lol - "Former Living Man"... I lost it.
 
Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything... I don't think any word can explain a man's life.


Welles was a genius. I like his obsession with names. Words. He kept that theme from Citizen Kane to his last film.

  • "Our works in stone, in paint, in print, are spared, some of them, for a few decades or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war, or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash - the triumphs, the frauds, the treasures and the fakes. A fact of life: we're going to die. "Be of good heart," cry the dead artists out of the living past. "Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing." Maybe a man's name doesn't matter all that much." -Welles, F for Fake
I used to get him and HG Wells mixed up in the past. I remembered each by reminding myself that HG Wells is better than Orson Welles. Now I don't believe that is true anymore. HG is still great, but Orson is on his level.
 
They haven't taken up the case because 4 different appellate courts came to the same conclusion.

You're welcome to speculate the same as I. Clarence Thomas has too.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-allows-new-york-connecticut-assault-weapons-ban/

In December, less than a month after a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented when the court refused to hear an appeal to overturn a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons. Scalia died in February.

Justice Thomas said the Chicago appeals court ruling "flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents." Without mentioning any mass shootings in California and elsewhere that involved semi-automatic guns, Thomas said the weapons ban "is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes" by roughly five million Americans.

"The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting," Thomas wrote.

Sounds like he thinks they didn't correctly apply the law. Then there's this from just this week.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...amendment-is-disfavored-right/article/2649503

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition from plantiffs Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs to hear the case.

Thomas said in his dissent he would have allowed the high court to take up the case, and said the decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly,” Thomas wrote in his dissent, “I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”

The district court ruled in favor of Silvester and Combs, two lawful California gun owners who, along with two nonprofits, challenged the law. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling.

Thomas went on to note that the appeals court’s “deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate, though not surprising,” and said he has observed a trend among the lower courts to resist the Supreme Court’s decision in the cases Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The justice said that in resisting the high court’s decisions in each of those cases, the lower courts are “failing to protect the Second Amendment to the same extent that they protect other constitutional rights.”
 
Yeesh, when you are citing to the dissenting opinion of a Supreme Court Justice unanimously considered by judicial scholars to be the worst Justice in the past 50 years, and generally one of the very worst in Supreme Court history, using a unadorned "most people affected" argument that hasn't passed Constitutional muster in centuries, you might want to shore up your argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top