Friends of CPF

Dissecting Leftism - Grouchy Old Cripple - John C. Drew - NewsBlaze - NewsRabble - Rebel Pundit - Right Wing News - Ritely


Author Topic: Looking for conservative clarification  (Read 2652 times)

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2013, 12:12:23 PM »
The 2nd is outdated.  Our founders were painfully aware that they were fallible humans and so is the constitution. They don't call them amendments because the thing was written in stone ya know.

“Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them...For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
-Ben Franklin

”As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”  -James Madison

How many of them, if knew about modern technology, would say "Let's make everyone's lives dependent on their cell phone connection and speed of the police."
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2013, 12:13:30 PM »
I knew I could count on a political forum called Conservative Political Forum to be chalk full of enlightened and civil debaters!

I'm kind of new to the forum game, am I supposed to call you a clown now too?  Is this like harmless adolescent ribbing or do you really think I'm a clown?  I'm just trying to understand your conservative culture better. all issues.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2013, 12:14:53 PM »
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.

The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force.  We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore. 

There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.

Why should we have gun control, and why do you want a more violent society?
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Capt.Obvious

  • Guest
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2013, 12:19:27 PM »
Why should we have gun control, and why do you want a more violent society?

Job security.

My livelihood relies on a remarkably stupid and violent society.  I'm really for more and cheaper guns, just trying to pump up the base mang.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2013, 12:20:44 PM »
Job security.

My livelihood relies on a remarkably stupid and violent society.
Oh.  You're a union rep?

Quote
  I'm really for more and cheaper guns, just trying to pump up the base mang.
What's a "mang"?
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Capt.Obvious

  • Guest
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2013, 12:28:08 PM »
Oh.  You're a union rep?
What's a "mang"?

Mang is a cool way to say 'man' I think.  The google says it's from the movie Scarface's Tony Montana.

"ju tink I a communiss, Mang....uh?"

"ju tink I wanna living some frickin cage, mang....uh?"

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12302
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2013, 12:29:24 PM »
Mang is a cool way to say 'man' I think.  The google says it's from the movie Scarface's Tony Montana.

"ju tink I a communiss, Mang....uh?"

"ju tink I wanna living some frickin cage, mang....uh?"

Are you in college?
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2013, 12:31:54 PM »
See the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, or hate speech.
Link?
Solar Right Wing Extremest

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7204
  • Gender: Male
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2013, 12:32:07 PM »
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.

The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force.  We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore. 

There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Why do the anti 2nd Amendment types always assume - no make that hope - that standing up to tyranny alway consist of people armed with hunting rifles standing in the open field against a fully armed US military (as if the tyrants could trust them). I guess it never occurs to them that it would be far simpler - and safer - to simply pick off the tyrants. Snipe all the generals. Use homemade bombs to make the lives of the tyrants unbearable.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2013, 12:33:51 PM »
I asked in what scenario can you envision ENOUGH U.S. citizens would take up arms against their own government?

I don't think it's going to be over the 2nd anyway.

*shrugs*
It would begin with  coup, either within the party in power, or the US Military, but you can be assured it would most likely have the support of the citizenry.
Solar Right Wing Extremest

Capt.Obvious

  • Guest
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2013, 12:41:47 PM »
Link?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

The Scotus says,

"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help."

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.



Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2013, 01:10:33 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

The Scotus says,

"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help."

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

They are not restrictions on free speech, the court even stated so.
Inciting violence is not protected under the First Amendment.
Child porn is not a 1st Amendment Right violation either.

When you, with the intent to inflict pain on another with your words, you are not protected.
Slander is not protected speech.
Solar Right Wing Extremest

Capt.Obvious

  • Guest
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2013, 02:27:32 PM »
Someone asked for restrictions on  freedom of speech which these are.  May have mixed posters.

Offline BILLY Defiant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
  • Gender: Male
  • In harms way of the furies at a reasonable price
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2013, 02:38:38 PM »
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.

The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force.  We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore. 

There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.


1. Muskets and cannons are replaced by laser guides on rifles and
    night scopes and amour piercing ammunition. Those illiterate Taliban
     mostly armed with ak's are doing a fine job against the worlds
    most technologically advanced military.

2. Voting prevents Tryanny? Tell that to all the people who voted for
     Hugo Chavez

you guys are a dime dozen, you come in here with the same line....

"I wanna understand conservative culture"  :popcorn:

then you come on with your intellectual superiority....you need to be honest, you come in here looking to point out how "we" are wrong and "you" are right.

Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Capt.Obvious

  • Guest
Re: Looking for conservative clarification
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2013, 02:46:29 PM »

1. Muskets and cannons are replaced by laser guides on rifles and
    night scopes and amour piercing ammunition. Those illiterate Taliban
     mostly armed with ak's are doing a fine job against the worlds
    most technologically advanced military.

2. Voting prevents Tryanny? Tell that to all the people who voted for
     Hugo Chavez

you guys are a dime dozen, you come in here with the same line....

"I wanna understand conservative culture"  :popcorn:

then you come on with your intellectual superiority....you need to be honest, you come in here looking to point out how "we" are wrong and "you" are right.


1. The Taliban is doing pretty good against us how exactly?

2. Huh?

3. Profit.

I was kidding about wanting to understand your culture.  I do however appreciate real debate and argument.

 

Powered by EzPortal