McCain backs Obama's call for 'stand your ground' review

[Chucktshoes]

I don’t care if you reject it or not; it doesn't change anything.


Blah blah blah I'm going to continue to ignore the question you asked me because I don't like the answer it forces me to give.

There! That looks a bit more accurate!
;) Edited August 10, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

There! That looks a bit more accurate!
;)

What's "accurate" is to take note that you continue to fail to offer up the clause in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress (that stem from said Constitution) to support your "belief" that the bill in question couldn't be proposed and voted on because it was "immoral" and "illegitimate"; apparently just so you can denigrate Corker and Alexander for actually doing the right thing for a change. It seems to me that you are quite willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits you to do so (even while concurrently claiming you honor it).  I would suggest that both Corker and Alexander do enough things worthy of disdain. I would also suggest that many folks, me for sure anyway, find it a bit childish of you to bash them for this when they actually did the right thing.

 

To answer your earlier inquiries, yes, Chucktshoes, I know (and for the record, belief has nothing to do with it) that the Constitution merely recognizes our natural rights as sentient beings. I know that these rights are ours by nature and not provided to us by the government or by a constitution.  I know that the Constitution is there to protect us and our rights and protect us from said government. What you need to know and apparently fail to or refuse to understand is that absolutely nothing I just said in the preceding three sentences has anything to do with the bill in question or how it was processed. The bill was properly introduced, properly brought to the floor and properly defeated all IAW the Constitution and the rules of the Senate and that Corker and Alexander did precisely the right thing in voting to get the bill to the floor and then helping to defeat it.

 

With that said, I'm done...I see no reason or benefit to continuing this so I'm going to "unfollow' the thread and move on and enjoy a rare weekend "off".

Edited August 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[whitewolf001]

:popcorn:  DANCE MY PUPPETS DANCE!!! :popcorn:

Edited August 10, 2013 by whitewolf001

[mikegideon]

 find it a bit childish 

 

 

Childish! That's why I like him :)

[Chucktshoes]

Blah blah blah accusations against others for doing the things I am really doing, blah blah blah.

To answer your earlier inquiries, yes, Chucktshoes, I know (and for the record, belief has nothing to do with it) that the Constitution merely recognizes our natural rights as sentient beings. I know that these rights are ours by nature and not provided to us by the government or by a constitution. I know that the Constitution is there to protect us and our rights and protect us from said government.

Since you claim to know the nature of the Constitution in the manner that you do, that makes your position even more indefensible. For if you really understood this concept, then you would understand that the Congress has no authority to legislate on this matter as the Constitution and BoR do not specifically grant it such authority. The BoR even goes on to specifically prohibit legislation on this matter in the 2A. So, if the Congress is attempting to act in a manner in which it has been specifically prohibited, to me, that would qualify as an illegitimate action. Also, since that action concerned whether or not to strip people of a natural right, I would qualify that as immoral in addition to its being illegitimate.

So building on what you said about your understanding of the Constitution, how does this;

What you need to know and apparently fail to or refuse to understand is that absolutely nothing I just said in the preceding three sentences has anything to do with the bill in question or how it was processed. The bill was properly introduced, properly brought to the floor and properly defeated all IAW the Constitution and the rules of the Senate and that Corker and Alexander did precisely the right thing in voting to get the bill to the floor and then helping to defeat it.

make any damn sense at all? Sure Congress can propose and vote on any damn bill it wants to, but if the content of the bill is not only outside of Congress' scope of enumerated powers, but also of an immoral nature, how can it be legitimately voted on? Unless of course, one believes that there are no limits to the power of Congress (or local governments for that matter) and that they may pass any law they damn well please regardless of how it violates an individual's property or liberty. Your words may say you believe one thing, but the positions you have taken lead me to suspect you really believe the other.

With that said, I'm done...I see no reason or benefit to continuing this so I'm going to "unfollow' the thread and move on and enjoy a rare weekend "off".

Awe, c'mon puddin! Don't leave! You know you still wanna play. :lol: Edited August 11, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[tnguy]

I think this is a "angels on the head of a pin" argument. Sure, such legislation should never even be crafted but with the system we have, it will be. The question is how to deal with it when it is. I think there's a lot to be said for legislation going to a full vote rather than being stalled in procedure. They are supposed to be representatives after all. Then again, there is way too much politicing coming into things.

 

To me, our protections should be the oath they take (allbeit that many are slimy bastards), legislative debate (too much politicing) then judicial review (many problems of its own). Possibly the president's signature should be in there somewhere but that's hardly worth mentioning these days. Procedural shenanigans don't really have a place and can be abused by good and bad alike.

Edited August 12, 2013 by tnguy