Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[cinFLA]

I understand. It is sort of like if I posted that at one time there was slavery in the US and he would respond that I was a racist slave-owning kook.

[Sandy]

I don't see your contention.

Just pointing out that tpaine's statement doesn't mean he's not familiar with the Barron decision. That's all.

[cinFLA]

Just pointing out that tpaine's statement doesn't mean he's not familiar with the Barron decision. That's all.

In the context of the post, it indicates otherwise. Of course that was his intent; to bait me on gun control.

Sort of like my saying there was once slavery in the US and when asked for proof provide copies of slave ownership documents AND THEM BEING ACCUSED OF BEING SYMPATHETIC TO RESORING SLAVERY IN THE US.

[cinFLA]

Just pointing out that tpaine's statement doesn't mean he's not familiar with the Barron decision. That's all.

Of course not. What it means is that he wanted me to think he was not familiar with it.

[Sandy]

Changing the subject...

There's an interesting debate about the Ninth Amendment that's been spreading around some law blogs. You guys might like it. It's great reading, imo.

Start here if you're inclined to check it out.

[cinFLA]

You then made the incorrect inference that his statement was a denial of Barron.

Are you now saying that the 1833 decision did NOT include the 2nd?

[eno_]

The real test of a jackboot licker is this:

List some unenumerated rights.

A true blue jackboot licking Drug Warrior will return a blank page. For extra credit, ask them to provide the constitutional basis for the ATF, and ask how it differs from the "constitutional basis" of the EPA, OSHA, and the whole list of other post New Deal anti-constitutional abominations.

Scratch police enthusiast deep enough and you will find one of FDR's komrades.

[cinFLA]

The real test of a jackboot licker is this:

The real test of an anarchist is to have him list any laws that he may favor. ZIP. Of course his constant ranting, name calling and distortions also tend to give him away.

[cinFLA]

I keep asking. Is it your contention that the 2nd is NOT part of the BOR's?

[cinFLA]

Changing the subject...

Why not answer some of the questions ON the subject.

[_Jim]

The real test of a jackboot licker is this:

Oh joy, more name calling.

THANKS for letting all of us know who you really are: DUh material.

"Unable to make substantive response you impugn those you are at odds with."

Great show eno_!

What more do you have for us?

[cinFLA]

The real test of a jackboot licker is this:

The real test of an anarchist is that "jackboot licker" is his favorite phrase.

[eno_]

The real test of an anarchist is to have him list any laws that he may favor. ZIP. Of course his constant ranting, name calling and distortions also tend to give him away.

I would be perfectly happy with the set of laws we had pre-New Deal and pre-Prohibition, along with the same levels of taxation and regulation, and the same ratio of government spending to GDP. Do you know what they called people who were against the New Deal? Republican.

Since I gave you a straight answer. How about you give me one: How many cabinet-level departments and all the laws related to then do you think are anti-constitutional? How many FLEOs is enough? And how about those unenumerated rights?

[Sandy]

Why not answer some of the questions ON the subject.

Because your question is absurd. "Is it your contention that the 2nd is NOT part of the BOR's?" WTF? The fact that you infer such a contention from any of my comments shows that you have a serious reading comprehension problem and that any discussion with you would be futile. Take a hike.

[_Jim]

How many FLEOs is enough?

Is your *real* answer to crime (and the criminal element) the same as John F'ing Kerrys is to terrorism in the world: "We'll negotiate with them and let the UN handle it"?

IF so, fergit it.

Ever watch John Walsh's America's Most Wanted? There are some REAL bad guys out there - in case you haven't noticed ...

AND who would handle domestic terrorism surveillance?

The postal service?

[mrsmith]

Perhaps earlier 'familiarity' instead of 'denial' was used. Too much flaming for me to look at it all.

Thanks, "Owen" is holding the line rather well I think.

It's a shame that Bork is always misquoted when the Ninth is discussed.
He said it is no better than an "ink blot" as to what the unenumerated rights were- not that the Ninth is no better than an ink blot.
Until Snopes debunks it as an urban legend I guess he'll always be misunderstood.

[eno_]

How about answering the question: How many armed federal agents is enough?

How much of the federal government is coloring outside constitutional lines? Any of it?

Are you happy with the ATF and its record?

I answered with a clear description of the kind of federal government I want. It was the mainstream Republican point of view in pre-New Deal America that that is how it should be. So tell us all: How many FLEOs should be fired tommorow in the process of returning us to a constitutional republic?

[Sandy]

Too much flaming for me to look at it all.

No kidding. How come the bloggers can manage to have such an in depth back-and-forth--with major disagreements--without a flame war breaking out?

[_Jim]

How about answering the question: How many armed federal agents is enough?

How is a reasonable number to be arrived at - are you fishing for something out of thin air? A guess? A pie-in-the-sky 'dreamland' nirvana where all crooks have been magically beamed off the planet? A statement that can be later used against me - what?

I don't think that you have a) any basis, whether empirical or theoretical, for a number either and b) DON'T have any clear or even foggy idea of just what the duties and functions are of these federal employees is on a daily basis, duties that keep an active and alive and ever-presnt criminal element at bay ...

To that end, I don't think you have *any* practical, real-life ideas about dang near anything save an oft displayed (but rarely vocalized) don't tread on me for any reason attitude; an antisocial attitude that is fine were you living on an island all by yourself where no demands are likely to be placed upon your time or assets ever ...

[tacticalogic]

flame war

More like a cinflagration.