So no signs of my compatriots of a certain ethnic in your area....Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Printable View
So no signs of my compatriots of a certain ethnic in your area....Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Herein rests the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?
Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.
Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Just for the record:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Chuck's contention of Senator’s oath to the Constitution of The United States of America in this matter is completely erroneous, or has there been a rash of Senatorial impeachments in The United States of America that slipped past my notice? :confused:Quote:
Representatives and Senators typically collectively propose up to 200 amendments during each term of Congress;[1]
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or maybe he is confusing them with the Republicans oath that they were pressured into signing (anti-tax pledges obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington) decreed by the will of creepy Grover Norquist :laugh:
Why do you waste your and everybody else's time here ranting on the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Probably not. At least not until you apologize for insulting every gun owner as ignorant, fearful, paranoid, and not worthy of any respect. Oh I'm sorry not every gun owner, only American gun owners, as you seem perfectly happy with Swiss gun owners that go around killing their own, and presumably others as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No respectful disagreement is the foundation for civil discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You completely misunderstand. Senator Feinstein is proposing a common law that abridges Constitutionally protected rights. That is what I have a problem with. If she were proposing an amendment, I would have not support said change, but I would support her right to propose that change.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It is as if she were to propose a common law that states you no longer have the right to post anything on the internet that opposes her views. That would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, right? And therefore unconstitutional, right? The 2nd Amendment is no different.
Clear as mud now?
NO no no. Perhaps I am not being expressly clear, although I thought I was. Proposing COMMON law to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution is what I have issue with. If she were proposing to amend the Constitution, that would be an entirely different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Ok Ok I get it. What we have here is a Senator in the process of trying to get a bill passed into law. If it were to pass it would be up to the Supreme Court to uphold it or rule it unconstitutional upon challenge. Nothing in her procedure is outside the normal workings of legislation in our great Republic, in fact it is quite the norm, and you should know that whether you agree with her proposed legislation or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That USA's "staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book" is the only reason you can post your opinion here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
[quote="Dr Giacomo Rappaccini"]Yea' our beaches bro suck!
http://tonyrobertsphotography.com/wp...h%20100667.jpg
At least we have some freakin' waves!!!
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-ge.../017483-01.jpg
http://travelbugster.files.wordpress...a-coast-x2.jpg
And my favotite, Point Reyes State Park (below) Of course someone of your girth could not handle the 4 mile hike through some of the most beautiful land in our country to enjoy it.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/trazzler-ima...af1fae43-1.jpg
Freezing water and waves just get sand everywhere. Funny that the best surfers come from Florida....Go figure.
Anyway....This is a beach
http://thecomputerdesign.com/wp-cont...ions-place.jpg
Oh and I may be overweight but you are a pretentious, self-absorbed, nanny-stater......and I can always go on a diet.
Weather is great for goose hunting tomorrow. I couldn't live without seasons! I Know my two coworkers that came from San Diego are loving it. They are both going goose hunting with me tomorrow actually. As for California's population growth, of course it is. It's a haven for people living on government assistance and illegal aliens. How's that welfare system working out feeding all that growth? Perfectly happy with our beaches here and my half a block walk to it from our place at the beach. I'll be down there hunting sea ducks next weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Well, that's exactly the problem many citizens of this country have with our justice system. They do have the power to enforce the laws we have, but prosecutors routinely accept plea bargains and reduced sentences and drop charges against repeat offenders. We have laws on the books to prosecute Violent offenders that use firearms under federal laws, yet they rarely ever do it. That is the problem. It happens EVERY day, and you know what happens, that same criminal is back out on the streets committing the same crimes again and again. These are not legal gun owners. They won't be the ones registering themselves, buying guns legally, and Paying more taxes yet again to legally possess a firearm. That will be me, and where will all of those "registration and licensing Fees" go when I comply with the rules? Into the general fund where they will yet again end up paying for medical assistance, welfare, food stamps, public housing for people unwilling to work or support themselves, their families or their various habits and addictions. These fees also create yet another class of citizens that may be unable to afford the various fees and licenses that will be required to legally exercise their rights. Again, the supreme court has ruled these restrictions and tightly controlled permits are a violation of the second amendment. Pass tighter laws like Jag proposed that target the problem of how we own firearms, not blatant bans, and then Enforce them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Pay for the costs out of the program budgets that support all of the criminals in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Oh this is rich, for starters I can tell you have never stood on a surfboard in your life, but just for the amusement of the forum explain who, how, and why a Surfer is "the best" I don't believe you have a close enough connection with nature to even understand the real surfing culture. BTW I don't need bathwater at my beaches, 66-74 degrees is just fine unless you are a total puss.
Do it.....post haste!!.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonyvop
Nothing quite like fresh game, I commend you for persuing the great art of "The Venator" and all of it's benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
BTW as for seasonal weather: Cuyamaca State Park (below) is a 45 to 60 minutes drive from Downtown San Diego.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dISd_xPYm1...w/s1600/24.JPG
Back to our topic - nice pictures of beaches and waves and snowy mountains by the way. :)
Okay yes, it is MSNBC and some can argue that it is skewed, but I wonder why they don't show the instances of people shooting on self defense (unless no one had to today)
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/05/yzabe4u8.jpg
now give us the world shooting and bombing figures
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Australia's constitution has no bill of rights. Rights in Commonwealth countries generally are unlimited except where hedged in by operation of law. The Bill of Rights Act 1689 and a side note confirmed in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) both confirm that free speech is in operation here. There is also Article 19 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"In Australia it is necessary to remember, when discussing civil liberties and rights, that one of the functions of common law has been to protect the individual against infringement of his or her personal rights"
- Sir Robert Menzies, 17th Jul 1971
"A bill of rights would diminish parliament's authority by transferring decision-making authority to unelected judges, accountable to nobody in the barest theoretical sense.
I've always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts.
If adopted, a bill of rights would politicise the appointment of judges, increase the volume of litigation and would not in any way increase the rights and protections now available to Australian citizens".
- John Howard, 27th Aug 2009
Australian law moves and evolves. British law which also has no written constitution and where this website happens to be hosted also shares the same Bill of Rights Act 1689, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various pieces of Common Law traditions and rulings.
So, no.
sorry fousto, no can do. No TV screen is giving me that info right now so I can't capture it with my camera phone - I had to try to get us back on topic really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Why? Because it is MSNBC. The media hates it when there are no victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
If it wasn't for the USA the people in Australia would be speaking Japanese and bowing for their emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
and I'd be speaking German... ach warte! :andrea:
Again not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.
- Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, per Background Paper Number 6 1992. Department of the Parliamentary Library.
Actually if it wasn't for the USA, Darwin would have never have been bombed. It was seen as a supply base for American forces.
You guys are lame :confused:
I think that this thread is now officially far enough off track tht it can be safely closed.
bunch of donkeys ! :bandit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
I agree, time to close it :)