The CSA (Opinions)

[GhostWriter16]

I completely disagree. We are no where near such a need. You seem to forget that this is still a democratically elected government. Until it stops being that I don't see the need to take up arms. I get that you don't like what the government is doing, but that is part of being on the losing side of the election. If we started taking up arms every time the other side in power did something we didn't like we'd be no better off that any third world country.

Where do you stand politically?

I am sick of New York, California, and the other liberal states dictating American policy. I am sick of it. And I'm from New York.

We need to either kick those two states out, or, better off, the Right-Wing states start their own country. New York and California have no right to tell the rest of the country what to do. The South needs a right-wing government. We also need a stronger constitution.

For instance, what I think the Second Amendment should say:

You have the right to keep and to bear arms. If such a right is infringed, it is the people's guilty to kill the man who takes it away.

I'm being serious, rights should supercede government. They currently don't, hence the problem.

I mean, if they want to change the Constitution, fine, try, but quit passing unconstitutional laws and bribing SCOTUS to call them "Constitutional."

Its funny that the more I post here the more up in arms and right-wing I get.

 

[Dachs]

You have the right to keep and to bear arms. If such a right is infringed, it is the people's guilty to kill the man who takes it away.

quoted for posterity

 

[GhostWriter16]

quoted for posterity

I was 299% serious

Seriously, I was serious though.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Where do you stand politically?

I am sick of New York, California, and the other liberal states dictating American policy. I am sick of it. And I'm from New York.

We need to either kick those two states out, or, better off, the Right-Wing states start their own country. New York and California have no right to tell the rest of the country what to do. The South needs a right-wing government. We also need a stronger constitution.

For instance, what I think the Second Amendment should say:

You have the right to keep and to bear arms. If such a right is infringed, it is the people's guilty to kill the man who takes it away.

I'm being serious, rights should supercede government. They currently don't, hence the problem.

I mean, if they want to change the Constitution, fine, try, but quit passing unconstitutional laws and bribing SCOTUS to call them "Constitutional."

Its funny that the more I post here the more up in arms and right-wing I get.

If, in a purely hypothetical situation in a universe that is even more screwed up than our own (hard to believe) you were able to start some sort of secessionist movement, I would get in the car and drive, very, very, very, very, very, very (twenty-eight minutes later) very far away. And then I would request a post at the International Space Station to watch the carnage from the cool, sanitized environment of an orbital device.

 

[Dachs]

I was 299% serious

Seriously, I was serious though.

Seriously a comic genius

I doubt I could have come up with something as totally loony as "the people's guilty"

 

[GhostWriter16]

Seriously a comic genius

I doubt I could have come up with something as totally loony as "the people's guilty"

See my post in the Death Penalty thread. I make my serious posts under the secret account name called Domination3000. Now have a nice day.

 

[Hallard]

Where do you stand politically?

I am sick of New York, California, and the other liberal states dictating American policy. I am sick of it. And I'm from New York.

We need to either kick those two states out, or, better off, the Right-Wing states start their own country. New York and California have no right to tell the rest of the country what to do. The South needs a right-wing government. We also need a stronger constitution.

For instance, what I think the Second Amendment should say:

You have the right to keep and to bear arms. If such a right is infringed, it is the people's guilty to kill the man who takes it away.

I'm being serious, rights should supercede government. They currently don't, hence the problem.

I mean, if they want to change the Constitution, fine, try, but quit passing unconstitutional laws and bribing SCOTUS to call them "Constitutional."

Its funny that the more I post here the more up in arms and right-wing I get.

Since you ask I identify myself as a liberal leaning moderate. For instance, I am a pretty strong support of the 2nd Amendment. I would describe my stances as the government should only go as far as requiring responsible ownership (gun registry, keeping guns from felons, assalt rifle bans).

And the Court is actually much more reserved than you believe and not just willy-nilly changing things as they seem fit. There are differences in legal opinion (textualist, living documenters {for lack of a better term off the top of my head}) that shape their opinions, but they all hold things like stare decisis (legal precedent) important and such.

And your beef with CA and NY should be squarely placed on the founder's shoulders, after all that is how they made it. And you seem to forget that we have the Senate to even that influence out. And it is more New Hampshire and Illinois I'd have beef with since they largely get to decide that candidates running for POTUS anyways.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Since you ask I identify myself as a liberal leaning moderate. For instance, I am a pretty strong support of the 2nd Amendment. I would describe my stances as the government should only go as far as requiring responsible ownership (gun registry, keeping guns from felons, assalt rifle bans).

And the Court is actually much more reserved than you believe and not just willy-nilly changing things as they seem fit. There are differences in legal opinion (textualist, living documenters {for lack of a better term off the top of my head}) that shape their opinions, but they all hold things like stare decisis (legal precedent) important and such.

And your beef with CA and NY should be squarely placed on the founder's shoulders, after all that is how they made it. And you seem to forget that we have the Senate to even that influence out. And it is more New Hampshire and Illinois I'd have beef with since they largely get to decide that candidates running for POTUS anyways.

Liberal leaning moderate in US terms then I assume? So like, less liberal then like Obama right?

Banning weapons is against the second amendment. Also, the problem with the Liberal states should be put on the Liberals Shoulders. Not the founders.

Although it wouldn't be necessarily fair, maybe giving each state one electoral vote is the ultimate solution.

 

[Dachs]

Although it wouldn't be necessarily fair, maybe giving each state one electoral vote is the ultimate solution.

more like the final solution

 

[GhostWriter16]

To everyone talking to me starting a secessionist movement, no, the states will, I'll just join.

 

[Hallard]

Liberal leaning moderate in US terms then I assume? So like, less liberal then like Obama right?

Banning weapons is against the second amendment. Also, the problem with the Liberal states should be put on the Liberals Shoulders. Not the founders.

Although it wouldn't be necessarily fair, maybe giving each state one electoral vote is the ultimate solution.

Yes in US terms. And Obama is not nearly as liberal as the right paints him. He didn't support universal health care for one (He danced around it, he would have signed it if such a bill passed but he wasn't pushing for that. He wasn't even pushing for the Public Option, that was mostly the liberals in Congress who wanted to find a middle ground). Honestly my opinions are more complex than to simply say less liberal than Obama. In some ways I certainly am, but in some issues I may be more liberal. Life is complex like that.

And to flat out say banning weapons is against the second amendment is as like saying regulating speech is flat out against the first. There are limited restrictions that still fit (like making slander and libel illegal, and on regulating weapons). Do you think we should be allowed to buy tanks, jets, or even nuclear weapons? Because that is what a flat out no ban interpretation leads to.

And what I was referring to with the founders is that the system that gives electoral and political weight to those states is the result of the system the founders created.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes in US terms. And Obama is not nearly as liberal as the right paints him. He didn't support universal health care for one (He danced around it, he would have signed it if such a bill passed but he wasn't pushing for that. He wasn't even pushing for the Public Option, that was mostly the liberals in Congress who wanted to find a middle ground). Honestly my opinions are more complex than to simply say less liberal than Obama. In some ways I certainly am, but in some issues I may be more liberal. Life is complex like that.

And to flat out say banning weapons is against the second amendment is as like saying regulating speech is flat out against the first. There are limited restrictions that still fit (like making slander and libel illegal, and on regulating weapons). Do you think we should be allowed to buy tanks, jets, or even nuclear weapons? Because that is what a flat out no ban interpretation leads to.

And what I was referring to with the founders is that the system that gives electoral and political weight to those states is the result of the system the founders created.

Well, arms means firearms. Though nukes is really the only one I'd say should necessarily be illegal.

Also, I think its a problem, not that the federal government, such as it may be, is run by the majority of people even if they're all liberal, but the Constitution and the State's Rights SHOULD NOT be decided by liberals alone. That's why I said give less power to the big states.

If all politicians followed the constitution, even partially, we'd be a lot better off.

PS: It is illegal to regulate speech in any form.

 

[Hallard]

PS: It is illegal to regulate speech in any form.

Afraid not. If it was no one could sue for libel or slander, for one, which is an example I gave right in my first post. Just like you could get in trouble for saying "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. Every right has it's limits.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Afraid not. If it was no one could sue for libel or slander, for one, which is an example I gave right in my first post. Just like you could get in trouble for saying "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. Every right has it's limits.

Yes, but my rights can only end WHERE YOURS BEGIN.

I have the legal right to slander whoever I want. For instance, do you think it should be ILLEGAL to say "Obama is a communist and a secret member of the CPUSA, he wants to make murder legal and Communism the law, and he wants to set up a one world government" (Even I'm not that nutty, but I would defend someone's right to say it.)

As for "Fire in a Crowded Theatre" I would say, as the Theatre is private property, only the owner can choose whether to attempt to prosecute them for it or not. And he probably will, but if he chooses not to it should be up to him.

I think I should point out you could easily (And validly) argue "Well that infringes upon my rights, I deserve the right not to be panicked and fearful for my dear life." However, me just owning an assault rifle or even hypothetically a nuke doesn't directly interfere with your rights (I don't think I should be allowed to own a nuke though.)

 

[Lord of Elves]

(I don't think I should be allowed to own a nuke though.)

No one's debating that.

 

[Hallard]

Yes, but my rights can only end WHERE YOURS BEGIN.

I have the legal right to slander whoever I want. For instance, do you think it should be ILLEGAL to say "Obama is a communist and a secret member of the CPUSA, he wants to make murder legal and Communism the law, and he wants to set up a one world government" (Even I'm not that nutty, but I would defend someone's right to say it.)

As for "Fire in a Crowded Theatre" I would say, as the Theatre is private property, only the owner can choose whether to attempt to prosecute them for it or not. And he probably will, but if he chooses not to it should be up to him.

I think I should point out you could easily (And validly) argue "Well that infringes upon my rights, I deserve the right not to be panicked and fearful for my dear life." However, me just owning an assault rifle or even hypothetically a nuke doesn't directly interfere with your rights (I don't think I should be allowed to own a nuke though.)

But he is able to prosecute him because of laws, which are enforced through the government, which it would not be able to do if there is an absolute freedom of speech. Also, only the state can prosecute. The individuals could sue for the damage to themselves in a civil court but that is not a prosecution. You do not have the right to slander whoever you choose. You can say that about Obama and other public figures because the law has developed as such to allow you to. It is a cost of them placing themselves in the public sphere. Now if you slandered me, and it caused me harm, I could sue you and win no matter how much you say First Amendment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No one's debating that.

But I was stating, technically, just me owning the nuke doesn't infringe upon your rights. The fear of me using it is so severe though I support making it illegal (I personally think the individual state governments should be allowed to own their own nukes as a deterrent against the Federal Government just using nukes to stop a civil war, or for additional support in a nuclear war. Since we have plenty of nukes we could just split half of ours equally amongst the 50 states and keep the other half.)

However, on topic, me owning ANY SORT of gun doesn't infringe upon your rights. What I do with it can, but not just owning it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But he is able to prosecute him because of laws, which are enforced through the government, which it would not be able to do if there is an absolute freedom of speech. Also, only the state can prosecute. The individuals could sue for the damage to themselves in a civil court but that is not a prosecution. You do not have the right to slander whoever you choose. You can say that about Obama and other public figures because the law has developed as such to allow you to. It is a cost of them placing themselves in the public sphere. Now if you slandered me, and it caused me harm, I could sue you and win no matter how much you say First Amendment.

Define slander please.

If I were to state publically (Even though I wouldn't) "Hallard is an idiot who hates America" It causes you no harm or infringement on your rights. Or if I say "Hallard is a member of the Illuminati and he wants to help them conquer the world" Even if you weren't I would be allowed to say it (I don't actually believe in the Illuminati trying to conquer the world, I was just making a point.) Now if I knowingly falsely accuse you of killing someone that's different.

 

[Hallard]

Define slander please.

If I were to state publically (Even though I wouldn't) "Hallard is an idiot who hates America" It causes you no harm or infringement on your rights. Or if I say "Hallard is a member of the Illuminati and he wants to help them conquer the world" Even if you weren't I would be allowed to say it (I don't actually believe in the Illuminati trying to conquer the world, I was just making a point.) Now if I knowingly falsely accuse you of killing someone that's different.

Well first, how exactly is that different? It's speech. Isn't any form of speech protected by the First Amendment? That is the difference.

And if it causes me no harm than it is not really slander. Notice I said as much in my original post. If you publicly said I'm a member of the illuminati trying to take over the world, and it, for instance, caused me to not get a job or get fired than there would be damage and I could sue you for it.

But you yourself just support my point in all this, that our rights have their limits (here specifically, the freedom of speech).

 

[Lord of Elves]

But I was stating, technically, just me owning the nuke doesn't infringe upon your rights. The fear of me using it is so severe though I support making it illegal (I personally think the individual state governments should be allowed to own their own nukes as a deterrent against the Federal Government just using nukes to stop a civil war, or for additional support in a nuclear war. Since we have plenty of nukes we could just split half of ours equally amongst the 50 states and keep the other half.)

However, on topic, me owning ANY SORT of gun doesn't infringe upon your rights. What I do with it can, but not just owning it.

Right, sorry man, I don't think you understand the destructive potential of nuclear weaponry. The idea of giving regional governments the power to exercize the deadly force involved in the use of nuclear weaponry is simply insane.