|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
two anti gun d-bags agree with each other
wow - amazing
You talkin' to me? Anti-gun? Don't think so. I was going to post photos of my collection but don't think that's wise. Suffice it to say it's above average with some really interesting items. Nothing to see here, just move along now. Elk, are you trying to impress? Not working.
Last edited by Paddler; 02/01/16.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,719 Likes: 13
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,719 Likes: 13 |
two anti gun d-bags agree with each other
wow - amazing
You talkin' to me? Anti-gun? Don't think so. I was going to post photos of my collection but don't think that's wise. Suffice it to say it's above average with some really interesting items. Nothing to see here, just move along now. Elk, are you trying to impress? Not working. So ironic, I thought the same thing about you.
FJB & FJT
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5 |
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue. Am I? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue. Am I? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That's the definition of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it, as well as the protection of laws, is not limited to citizens. Is the baby a person (I.e., a distinct individual human being)? The answer is "yes". Go back and try again.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/01/16.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Let's look at what has been adjudicated. Like it or not, here is what the Court ruled in Roe V. Wade. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.htmlTo reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review. 558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Let's look at what has been adjudicated. Like it or not, here is what the Court ruled in Roe V. Wade. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.htmlTo reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review. 558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 The SCOTUS has also previously ruled (until it overturned itself) that blacks and women were not "persons" under the Constitution either. Were they right then, morally, ethically, logically, and philosophically, simply because they decreed themselves "right" legally? The same analysis of Dred Scott applies to Roe v. Wade. If you'd care to take this to a simplistic legal argument and avoid all the ethical, logical, and moral problems your position faces then I'm fine with that. Your call, and you're welcome to concede the ethical, logical, moral, and philosophical to rely only on the current legal if you wish. Say when...
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
Let's look at what has been adjudicated. Like it or not, here is what the Court ruled in Roe V. Wade. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.htmlTo reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review. 558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 The SCOTUS has also previously ruled (until it overturned itself) that blacks and women were not "persons" under the Constitution either. Were they right then, morally, ethically, logically, and philosophically, simply because they decreed themselves "right" legally? The same analysis of Dred Scott applies to Roe v. Wade. If you'd care to take this to a simplistic legal argument and avoid all the ethical, logical, and moral problems your position faces then I'm fine with that. Your call, and you're welcome to concede the ethical, logical, moral, and philosophical to rely only on the current legal if you wish. Say when... Not conceding anything. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. You happen to disagree, probably because you're a sexist pig or you have an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. Your call.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5 |
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Snyper, I asked you a specific question. Does society pass laws that govern ethics and morality? You completely ignored that question. I was merely trying to understand your argument better because from what I can see it mostly consists of if it's legal it's okay to do. I didn't ignore your question You just didn't like the answer, so you keep repeating it, incorrectly thinking my reply will change I told you twice your interpretation was wrong, and yet you ask again Laws don't govern ethics and morality They establish punishments for things deemed criminal
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Snyper,
Do you vote? Or do you trust your fellow abortionists to keep the necessary Presidents and Senators in office to insure that no USSC justices that are pro-life are appointed to the court?
Just for the record, I take the only logical position on this for a pro-lifer - how would we (society) enforce an abortion ban? Are we going to tie these women to a bed until the child is born? No, we can't. In the final analysis, the choice has to rest with the mother-to-be. She can explain her decision(s) to God when she passes. I'm not an "abortionist" I don't worry about "explaining to God" any more than most here would worry about making Allah happy. If I did, that's not anyone's business either I just believe in people minding their own business. And yes, I vote
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 96,170 Likes: 5 |
Life Member SCI Life Member DSC Member New Mexico Shooting Sports Association
Take your responsibilities seriously, never yourself-Ken Howell Proper bullet placement + sufficient penetration = quick, clean kill. Finn Aagard
Ken
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue. Am I? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That's the definition of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it, as well as the protection of laws, is not limited to citizens. Is the baby a person (I.e., a distinct individual human being)? The answer is "yes". Go back and try again. Show (Copy and paste) the exact part of the Constitution that "grants" any rights to a fetus, or even mentions one at all. Otherwise you're just parroting the same lines over and over because you have no logical reason why you think it's any of your business
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Your grasping at "citizenship" is a classic misreading of the Constitution (and law), and a misunderstanding of the rights guaranteed therein. The issue is not "citizenship", but whether the individual involved is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. There can be no denial that a human with distinct, individual DNA is, in fact, a person. Go back and re-read those documents again with an understanding of "person" and not "citizen" being the issue. Am I? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That's the definition of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it, as well as the protection of laws, is not limited to citizens. Is the baby a person (I.e., a distinct individual human being)? The answer is "yes". Go back and try again. Show (Copy and paste) the exact part of the Constitution that "grants" any rights to a fetus, or even mentions one at all. Otherwise you're just parroting the same lines over and over because you have no logical reason why you think it's any of your business As always, you're missing - intentionally - the point. The baby is, biologically and rationally, a "person". Read the Constitution and applicable laws for the applicability to "persons" or "people" and try again. You continue to use the word "fetus" to place the distinct, individual human being into a separate category. That is biologically and logically invalid, for exactly those (biological and logical) reasons.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/01/16.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
Snyper the point is that society can and does impose rules/laws on the people in that society. Those rules/laws do take the shared ethics/morality of society into account.
Basically I'm saying your argument of "you don't get to impose your morality or ethics on others" is pretty weak. Because within the limits of the Constitution the majority seems to do a pretty effective job of pushing their morality/ethics on others who don't necessarily agree.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Snyper the point is that society can and does impose rules/laws on the people in that society. Those rules/laws do take the shared ethics/morality of society into account.
Basically I'm saying your argument of "you don't get to impose your morality or ethics on others" is pretty weak. Because within the limits of the Constitution the majority seems to do a pretty effective job of pushing their morality/ethics on others who don't necessarily agree. Technically, the Constitution does not bend to the whims of the majority. Otherwise, you're correct in that laws do effectively enforce morality and ethics on the population. There's not "mind your own business" there at all.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
That's why I said within the limits of the Constitution. It might not of been as clearly stated as it could of been.
If I can see the hole in an argument it's usually pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,677 Likes: 21
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,677 Likes: 21 |
You guys make it so complicated. I am not a very religious man, I approach this from a non-theological position. I oppose murdering children. It really is that simple. The ogres that wish to define what a "child" is so that they can justify such actions are disgusting.
MAGA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,979
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,979 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,778 |
Kenny, it looks like I'm not on Ignore anymore. Do you know the answer to my riddle? Bobby says he does. Why don't you two PM each other and post up the answer? Still haven't had time to take photos of my Caprivi. I have photos of my 16 gauge Piotti King I, though, so I'll post a couple. Keep in mind the price of this gun new exceeds that of all the guns you've posted thus far. Just sayin.. Here's the left lockplate, hand engraved 100% by Granetti with German CC: Here's a cased Piotti Westlake. You can look up the price of this gun if you so choose. Just a hint, it's at least double the price of the most expensive gun you've shown. No thing, really:
Last edited by Paddler; 02/01/16.
The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. Saxton Pope
|
|
|
|
598 members (06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 1234, 54 invisible),
13,402
guests, and
1,027
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,124
Posts18,542,310
Members74,057
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|