Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Lying Democrats
Author Message
wmubroncopilot Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,271
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 64
I Root For: WMU
Location: Anchorage, AK
Post: #41
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 11:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.


Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

I dont disagree with you in concept and think the government over reached when it came to laws after 9-11. But we are a nation of laws and even if we dont like the laws we must live by them. Or fight to change the laws. The highest court in this land ruled on this and its up to congress to change that law....

your fight is with your congress members and getting them to fight and change the laws. I personally hate all the watering down of rights after 9-11 but again...

laws are what able us to basically live together without a ruler dictating every parts of our life.

I agree! That's why I go through TSA regularly and keep my mouth shut among plenty of other laws we follow.

The discussion is about what is appropriate for the government to regulate in our lives, and so IMO hiding behind "the courts say it so it's legit" is a copout. And people on here who are telling me that would be singing a different tune if it involved say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment (and rightfully so).

Cat's out of the bag I'm afraid, but it is still worth fighting government overreach. This won't be popular around here but that's why I donate to the ACLU, although I do have problems with their inconsistency (more like silence) on the 2nd Amendment and a couple other things.
08-10-2019 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MemTigers1998 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,955
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 424
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

18 year old criminal thugs
08-10-2019 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
450bench Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 23,909
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 1249
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Memphis
Post: #43
RE: Lying Democrats
Liberalism is a mental illness
08-10-2019 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Online
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 20,021
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 895
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #44
Lying Democrats
M’gosh.

The pandering is HARD by these fringe dim candidates.

Wonder what 538 and MUH NATE! Has to say about the appeal of this nonsense.

My guess is the drumpf numbers just went up another 4 points.

Thanks Obama! This is your true legacy!
08-10-2019 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Online
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 20,021
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 895
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #45
Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 01:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:00 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 12:58 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Whenever a dim tries to say that the narrative that dims hate law enforcement is false just link this thread.

The damned Obama administration DOJ, even with all of their bias, ruled that the shooting of Mike Brown was righteous. Yet here we are five years later with the left continuing the false narrative and attacking law enforcement.

Shut up bootlicker

LOL

Just stating the facts **** sucker. Sorry if it hurts your snowflake feelings.


I don’t know Kap,

He seems super-serial this time. 04-coffee
08-10-2019 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Online
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 20,021
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 895
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #46
Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 06:07 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Both Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law Prof., Native American quota recipient) and Kamala Harris (former California prosecutor) described Michael Brown's death as a murder.

That neither knows the definition of murder should be an embarrassment to both Harvard and California.


Actually I think it’s worse than that.

AM, I get your point, but I have little doubt that both of them know quite well the distinction here and quite deliberately used that word.

Both to inflame and pander at the same time.

Wouldn’t surprise me if this kind of dumbassery stirs up another round of senseless violence and destruction of other people’s ish on this “anniversary”.

This alone should disqualify either of them from even thinking about seeking the office of POTUS. Irresponsible
08-10-2019 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 16,178
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 992
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Pennsylvania

Survivor Champion
Post: #47
RE: Lying Democrats
A spiraling mess of whataboutism
08-10-2019 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,020
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Criminal behavior, attacking a police officer, firing his weapon and assaulting him is serious regardless of the age of the perp. Good the officer killed him because this individual probably would have killed an innocent individual sooner or later.
08-10-2019 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUApollo Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,767
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 182
I Root For: WKU Hilltoppers
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Lying Democrats
It will be non-stop cries of "racism" until the election. It's been this way for decades. The more they cry racism, the more fearful they won't win.



08-10-2019 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Online
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 12,692
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 481
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #50
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

The word "unreasonable" in the 4th as opposed to the words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd provides all the answers you need.

Both the 2nd and 4th protect you from the government. Based on the language chosen in each, which do you think is the more important?
08-10-2019 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,020
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 01:15 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

You dumb chits with your programmed talking points are beyond idiots. You have no cogent thought of your own. Your stupid arguments over drivers licenses and airport security is the best your side can come up with?
08-10-2019 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,020
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.


Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.
08-10-2019 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wmubroncopilot Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,271
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 64
I Root For: WMU
Location: Anchorage, AK
Post: #53
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.


Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.

This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.

Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.
08-10-2019 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 22,790
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2164
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #54
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.


Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.

This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.

Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Just stop.

You've already admitted that you don't believe in the original intent of the founding Fathers in regards to gun. You need to make up your rabbit-assed mind hoplophpobe.
08-11-2019 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,020
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 420
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.


Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.

This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.

Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Well, yes. As long as the courts and the POTUS goes along with it. If you don’t like it vote for more conservative, small government leaders. Then demand constitutional judges be appointed.
Somehow I get the feeling that’s not the direction you want to go.
08-11-2019 07:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TigerBlue4Ever Offline
Ban bans
*

Posts: 42,456
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 1586
I Root For: truffles
Location: is everything
Post: #56
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-11-2019 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.

This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.

Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Just stop.

You've already admitted that you don't believe in the original intent of the founding Fathers in regards to gun. You need to make up your rabbit-assed mind hoplophpobe.

And you call me dense...

Don't ever lump me in with this dude.
08-11-2019 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 61,650
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1380
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Governments have been doing that for centuries. It's inherent in the beast. That's why our forefathers had the good sense to put significant limits on government's power, particularly the federal government's power.

But we keep ceding more power to government. I ask myself, "Would I be comfortable with giving government that power if Hitler ran the government?" The patRIOT act, among others, fails that test--badly.
08-11-2019 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wmubroncopilot Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,271
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 64
I Root For: WMU
Location: Anchorage, AK
Post: #58
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-11-2019 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:19 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

The fourth says “unreasonable” search and seizure. The second says “shall not be infringed”. Not hard to understand if one has two brain cells to rub together.

This is like when gun grabbers try to pull the "well-regulated militia" card. If you think the founding fathers would be OK with the f*cking feds grabbing peoples c*cks and rifling through all their chit when they're just trying to get a coffee and board the 5am to Dayton you're insane. Were they petrified of terrorists? F*ck no! Explain air travel to them and they'd tell you to sack up and get on the damn plane and quit signing your rights away by voting for the two party BS system. And that's not even as bad as the heinous chit the DHS, NSA, etc. pull on a daily basis.

Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Just stop.

You've already admitted that you don't believe in the original intent of the founding Fathers in regards to gun. You need to make up your rabbit-assed mind hoplophpobe.

You're so paranoid about muh guns that even an honest question about original intent-- while continuing to state that the 2A is law and has to be followed-- makes someone a "hoplophobe".

Let me clear it up for you: I don't give 2 f*cks if people have guns. I personally don't care for them, but it's in the Constitution, and why it's in there is immaterial because it's the highest law of the land. Keep twisting my words all you want, but I have never stated anything supporting gun control.

I appreciated your response a few days ago on the topic as it was one of the most genuine responses I have ever seen you make. I started putting a post together to show the other side, as there are quotes showing a bit different outlook on the 2A from some founding fathers (which is partially where the "well-regulated militia" comes from, but again that doesn't modify "shall not be infringed"). But you convinced me that at least some did look at it as protection from an overreaching government, and it's a mostly unimportant debate as it doesn't change the law in any way. So I let it be.

Here's the difference, since your panties are in too much of a bunch to get past someone daring to not jack off to guns:

Questioning the intent of the FF in regards to the 2A is purely a thought exercise. Regardless of my personal feelings, the law is the law; there is not wiggle room written in. So the FF's intent doesn't actually matter in the end.

SoMs seized on the word "unreasonable", meanwhile, to justify actual actions by the government. At that point, it becomes relevant to question what the intent of the amendment was, as there is actual wiggle room written in. I personally think it's absurd to suggest the tactics of TSA, not to mention the NSA, DHS, and on and on, would be considered reasonable by the people that wrote the amendment.

Liberty over security.
08-11-2019 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wmubroncopilot Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,271
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 64
I Root For: WMU
Location: Anchorage, AK
Post: #59
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-11-2019 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 08:29 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Yeah, sure is "reasonable" these days. What a joke. By your logic the government can just set the definition of "unreasonable" all by themselves and do whatever the hell they want.

Governments have been doing that for centuries. It's inherent in the beast. That's why our forefathers had the good sense to put significant limits on government's power, particularly the federal government's power.

But we keep ceding more power to government. I ask myself, "Would I be comfortable with giving government that power if Hitler ran the government?" The patRIOT act, among others, fails that test--badly.

Exactly, and suggesting it's OK because of the word "unreasonable" is playing right into their hands.

At some point we really need to, as a people, say enough is enough with the two parties that both want runaway government growth and to keep stealing rights.
08-11-2019 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,425
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 953
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Lying Democrats
(08-10-2019 02:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(08-10-2019 06:07 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Both Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law Prof., Native American quota recipient) and Kamala Harris (former California prosecutor) described Michael Brown's death as a murder.

That neither knows the definition of murder should be an embarrassment to both Harvard and California.


Actually I think it’s worse than that.

AM, I get your point, but I have little doubt that both of them know quite well the distinction here and quite deliberately used that word.

Both to inflame and pander at the same time.

Wouldn’t surprise me if this kind of dumbassery stirs up another round of senseless violence and destruction of other people’s ish on this “anniversary”.

This alone should disqualify either of them from even thinking about seeking the office of POTUS. Irresponsible

Agree.
08-11-2019 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.