NATION

PASSWORD

They make *what* for kids!?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Fri May 03, 2013 5:59 pm

Hathradic States wrote:Well, if something is not a right, and can be controlled, what is the logical extreme?

Dragons descend from Valhalla shitting asteroids?

Is your argument really a Slippery Slope?
Hathradic States wrote:I will when you drop the textbook liberal act.

Which is...?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Fri May 03, 2013 5:59 pm

New England and The Maritimes wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:


There you go.

Note the rest of it.

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Yes, and the general guideline is commonly held firearms. Machineguns are not commonly held, therefore the right to keep and carry them, while not nonexistent, is capable of much more stringent regulation.

Although this is a bit circular as the commonly held standard is the result of seventy odd years with the NFA in place, but in any case...
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Fri May 03, 2013 6:00 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:Because it grants more rights, to put it simply. Once you have justified why something is a right, it is damn difficult to say why it isn't.

Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:00 pm

United Dependencies wrote:
Neo Art wrote:I will admit though, I do get a little bit of delight at watching laypeople "agree" with a supreme court decision (especially when they get caught admitting they don't actually know what's in it). I sometimes have to wonder what's next. Are we going to be graced with their belief concerning CERN's data regarding the Higgs Boson? A bit of "Get out of my way! I got a B- in highschool physics and I'm here to validate your data!"

My poli sci professor was talking earlier about how annoying it is to try and teach poli sci for that very reason.


It REALLY fucking is. I mean, this is a discussion board, so we're supposed to be discussing, but I've always been somewhat bemused by this whole "special snowflake syndrome" thing going on when it comes to law and policy.

I don't understand how people can view themselves as rational, intelligent, reasonable people, and hold an opinion about a case when they have absolutely no idea what it says.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13659
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Fri May 03, 2013 6:00 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:If they were wrong in that decision, How can you be certain they're right in Heller?

Because it grants more rights,

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Fri May 03, 2013 6:00 pm

Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Prove I don't have the right to own a firearm.

Or try to convince me to repeal said right.

Go back and read the thread.

Yes. You have neither proven I don't have the right, nor convinced me or others that repealing said right would be a good idea.

So...congrats?
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:00 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?


.....wow.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
Cosara
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Nov 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosara » Fri May 03, 2013 6:01 pm

Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Prove I don't have the right to own a firearm.

Or try to convince me to repeal said right.

Go back and read the thread.

You've made no valid arguments.
"Do not lose hope; St. Joseph also had moments of doubt. but he never lost faith and was able to overcome them in the certainty that God never abandons us." -Pope Francis

"We are never defeated unless we give up on god." -Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Fri May 03, 2013 6:01 pm

United Dependencies wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:Because it grants more rights,

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Fri May 03, 2013 6:01 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

...The fuck?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Fri May 03, 2013 6:02 pm

Neo Art wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:What is one individual right they overturned after granting?


.....wow.

Seriously, find me one.

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Algonquin Ascendancy
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Mar 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Algonquin Ascendancy » Fri May 03, 2013 6:02 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:So what would you say if the court suddenly said that personal ownership of guns was not a right?

That the Supreme Court was full of shit. But, since I likely won't have to deal with that for a long time, I see no reason to worry about it now.

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?
• Call me Makki. •
Des: "Humanity: fucking awesome."
My name is Makkitotosimew, I am an Algonquin Separatist and also support the Quebec Separatist movement for purely pragmatic reasons. I am a member of the First Peoples National Party of Canada.
I worship Manitou, the Great Spirit. Mahinga is my spirit guide. All life is sacred and should be treated with respect. As such, I am opposed to sport hunting and factory farming.
I am a Democratic Syndicalist.
I am a 23 year old polyamorous, pansexual woman.
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:03 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.


Oh, you mean it upheld the right of the railroad to maintain seperate but equal facilities on their railcars?

I see.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Fri May 03, 2013 6:03 pm

Cosara wrote:
Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:Go back and read the thread.

You've made no valid arguments.

Hello. I'm Mavorpen. I would like to inform you that there are more people participating in this thread outside of AA.

So stop dicking around and pretending as though the only person making arguments here is her. Go read the last few pages.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:03 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
Neo Art wrote:
.....wow.

Seriously, find me one.


....wow.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13659
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Fri May 03, 2013 6:03 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It upheld certain rights for businesses.
Last edited by United Dependencies on Fri May 03, 2013 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Cosara
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Nov 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosara » Fri May 03, 2013 6:04 pm

United Dependencies wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

Did that happen to be the right to have blacks work separately from whites?
"Do not lose hope; St. Joseph also had moments of doubt. but he never lost faith and was able to overcome them in the certainty that God never abandons us." -Pope Francis

"We are never defeated unless we give up on god." -Ronald Reagan

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:05 pm

United Dependencies wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.


The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Fri May 03, 2013 6:05 pm

Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:That the Supreme Court was full of shit. But, since I likely won't have to deal with that for a long time, I see no reason to worry about it now.

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Fri May 03, 2013 6:05 pm

United Dependencies wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Fri May 03, 2013 6:06 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
Algonquin Ascendancy wrote:So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

Well, considering we've presented our argument several times without anyone being able to provide substantial arguments against it...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Fireye
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1245
Founded: Mar 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Fireye » Fri May 03, 2013 6:06 pm

Neo Art wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:So what would you say if the court suddenly said that personal ownership of guns was not a right?


Oh come now, the SUPREME COURT spoke in Heller, the most brilliant justices of the age. Including chief justice John Roberts, a foremost scholar of peerless capacity, unassailable, and above your petty questioning.

Until he ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Boy, did they shit a brick then.

Honestly, I thought NFIB V Sebelius was a pretty impressive bit of legal nitpicking on his part. I disagree with it, but I was impressed by it.

...

After my initial "OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" reaction, in all honesty.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/235745/

Proud Member of the National Canine Association. We Defend Dogs and Dog Owners Alike

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Fri May 03, 2013 6:06 pm

Hathradic States wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.



Hathradic States wrote:Because it grants more rights, to put it simply. Once you have justified why something is a right, it is damn difficult to say why it isn't.


Word that does not appear in the above: people.

You are really, really, REALLY bad at this.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Fri May 03, 2013 6:06 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

Well, considering we've presented our argument several times without anyone being able to provide substantial arguments against it...

Stop lying.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Fri May 03, 2013 6:07 pm

Neo Art wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.


Oh, you mean it upheld the right of the railroad to maintain seperate but equal facilities on their railcars?

I see.

So, just for clarity's sake, we can't speak of a "Right of access" in this case as being denied because that wasn't the question being decided on? Since there wasn't a right to free equal access to all facilities public and private to base their case from, the question was about the right of businesses to discriminate in who can access their facilities and whether or not that should be the law of the land? Or whether or not such a right was a real thing?
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bavarno, Bemolian Lands, Corporate Collective Salvation, Eternal Algerstonia, Ethel mermania, Glomb, Necroghastia, Onceluria, Port Caverton, Reloviskistan, Rhodevus, Spirit of Hope, Stellar Colonies, The Acolyte Confederacy, The Two Jerseys, Washington-Columbia

Advertisement

Remove ads