RE: Purposeful Confusion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/14/2016 9:29:16 PM)

Yeah well if they keep it up nobody will care and down they go.

T^T



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 4:02:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Each individual exercises his right to assembly.

Point taken.
quote:

Haveing a jury is a right.
Being on a jury is a duty.

And yet the individual cannot exercise their right to a trial by jury without requiring the participation of others, which was the point I disagreed with.
Not all rights work that way. The right of a free press for example, is not one that can be exercised individually, it is one that by definition requires the participation of many people to exercise.
My point is that rights are too complicated to be reduced to such a simplistic formula, and also far too important.

FOr example. Those who say you only have the right to bear arms if you are in a formal militia are makeing that "right" a quid pro quo privilage for militiamen.
Thus they are attempting to turn a right into a privilage.

As I pointed out, convicted felons may not bear arms, so........privilege. You are in epic fail.



Real0ne -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 8:21:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Each individual exercises his right to assembly.

Point taken.
quote:

Haveing a jury is a right.
Being on a jury is a duty.

And yet the individual cannot exercise their right to a trial by jury without requiring the participation of others, which was the point I disagreed with.
Not all rights work that way. The right of a free press for example, is not one that can be exercised individually, it is one that by definition requires the participation of many people to exercise.
My point is that rights are too complicated to be reduced to such a simplistic formula, and also far too important.

FOr example. Those who say you only have the right to bear arms if you are in a formal militia are makeing that "right" a quid pro quo privilage for militiamen.
Thus they are attempting to turn a right into a privilage.

As I pointed out, convicted felons may not bear arms, so........privilege. You are in epic fail.


says the king of cockgargle, cite that "convicted felons may not bear arms" because you are making shit up again captain blunder




WickedsDesire -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 8:42:45 AM)

I think humans >99% have no real rights and we spent time fighting for them only for them to be eroded to the bone in the last 25-50 years by corrupt politicians and big business

I actually admire the American constitution (thieved it off the brits and we probably thieved bits from Athens) - well the bits I have read - but even I know it has no value.



Real0ne -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:05:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

I think humans >99% have no real rights and we spent time fighting for them only for them to be eroded to the bone in the last 25-50 years by corrupt politicians and big business

I actually admire the American constitution (thieved it off the brits and we probably thieved bits from Athens) - well the bits I have read - but even I know it has no value.


It has great value! For you too!

Relation Back Doctrine is a principle that something done today will be treated as if it were done earlier. ...

hey those guys were brits and they beat out the spanish and french and the only place we deviate from common law nationwide is lousiana!

They are using the same old tried and true trick the kings did. The statutes run an impasse around the constitution, just like normans did an impasse around the bocklands held in alod in the UK.

Hell if you look at the UK BoR from 1698, even there the 'PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' was declared by the people ABOLISHED to prevent the King, (the representative of and head of state) from continuing to dictate law by euphemism and what do we here in the US?

Why americans were forced to take the pledge allegiance and practiced up well into the 1980's.

On of many incontravertible proofs is that the lands (which determin status under common law) were originally considered 'Allodial' and only a sovereign can hold land in al ohd.

Very simple to prove the point that there has been a constant coup PRECISELY AS PREDICTED that the US would be taken over by Britain without the need to fire so much as one shot.

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/ALLODIALCONGRESSIONALL.jpg[/image]






BamaD -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:06:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Each individual exercises his right to assembly.

Point taken.
quote:

Haveing a jury is a right.
Being on a jury is a duty.

And yet the individual cannot exercise their right to a trial by jury without requiring the participation of others, which was the point I disagreed with.
Not all rights work that way. The right of a free press for example, is not one that can be exercised individually, it is one that by definition requires the participation of many people to exercise.
My point is that rights are too complicated to be reduced to such a simplistic formula, and also far too important.

FOr example. Those who say you only have the right to bear arms if you are in a formal militia are makeing that "right" a quid pro quo privilage for militiamen.
Thus they are attempting to turn a right into a privilage.

As I pointed out, convicted felons may not bear arms, so........privilege. You are in epic fail.


says the king of cockgargle, cite that "convicted felons may not bear arms" because you are making shit up again captain blunder



Felons forfit many rights.



Real0ne -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:16:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Felons forfit many rights.


Show me where the people granted the gubblmint the authority to force anyone to forfeit 'ANY RIGHT' RESERVED BY THE PEOPLE?

The BoR are rights that the people reserved to ourselves Bama, not a rights granted by the gubblemint which is only a mere corporate priviledge.

The BoR acknowledges the no trespass zone, but then what contract has the US ever upheld with anyone or any nation without stomping all over it?

The only 'legitimate' time that a felon must forfeit their rights is when they are in jail. on other words the only time someone would NOT have the right to bear arms if they were actually serving a sentence.

That is one reason they hung people for crimes, it protects the system, in its intended operation which was near anarchy or as close as a nation could come and still maintain order and peace among the dumb animals.

We are long into the late stages of law by prescription, and divine prerogative, [of state] thanks to the fox gaurding the hen house for the last 200++ years.

No one is going to come up with any citation what so ever that a felon has no right to bear 'ARMS'. Why because there is no question that a law that prevents bearing 'ARMS' is unconstitutional.

Its all cloak and dagger word games as it will for ever be because they have been doing it that way since the beginning of time because it works and it will continue to work.



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:22:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Felons forfit many rights.


Show me where the people granted the gubblmint the authority to force anyone to forfeit 'ANY RIGHT' RESERVED BY THE PEOPLE?

The BoR are rights that the people reserved to ourselves Bama, not a rights granted by the gubblemint which is only a mere corporate priviledge.

The BoR acknowledges the no trespass zone, but then what contract has the US every upheld with anyone or any nation without stomping all over it?

The only 'legitimate' time that a felon must forfeit their rights is when they are in jail.

That is one reason they hung people for crimes, it protects the system, in its intended operation which was near anarchy or as close as a nation could come and still maintain order and peace among the dumb animals.


There was no right reserved by the people. Not one.



BamaD -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:23:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Felons forfit many rights.


Show me where the people granted the gubblmint the authority to force anyone to forfeit 'ANY RIGHT' RESERVED BY THE PEOPLE?

The BoR are rights that the people reserved to ourselves Bama, not a rights granted by the gubblemint which is only a mere corporate priviledge.

The BoR acknowledges the no trespass zone, but then what contract has the US every upheld with anyone or any nation without stomping all over it?



Inprisonment is in and of itself a violation of numerous rights.
Dealing out penalties is a function of governent.
Woudn't you say that hanging would envolve forfiting some rights.



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:26:43 AM)

at least the privilege of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one could imagine.



Real0ne -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:44:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Felons forfit many rights.


Show me where the people granted the gubblmint the authority to force anyone to forfeit 'ANY RIGHT' RESERVED BY THE PEOPLE?

The BoR are rights that the people reserved to ourselves Bama, not a rights granted by the gubblemint which is only a mere corporate priviledge.

The BoR acknowledges the no trespass zone, but then what contract has the US every upheld with anyone or any nation without stomping all over it?



Inprisonment is in and of itself a violation of numerous rights.
Dealing out penalties is a function of governent.
Woudn't you say that hanging would envolve forfiting some rights.


ok and that takes us to the second matters addressed from ancient times forward.

While this is true, the test is injury in fact, and the right of revenge which is not something a gubblmint can experience.

In other words if you murder someone you trespassed not only upon that person but everyone affected by the fact that person is no longer alive. Like wife and kids etc, hence one reason people would enter into real slavery, to pay the debt to the family as a recompense. However the gubblmint like everything else hijacked it and now have private for profit prisons to pay for their services, because we the idjits of this country give up rights because they do not know they are even giving them up and the legislatures have long simce committed treason in which through their courts declared they have no legal obligation to protect you! Now the gublmint 'interlopers' has long since taken over the right of revenge and of course since they are so generous the least we can do is give them the profits.





mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 9:47:06 AM)

LOL. The fucking tinfoiler is real gone for la-la land. EE-YUL EE-YUL!!!!



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 10:23:28 AM)

Sure I did, are you on because you dont know the paragraph and subparagraph?

18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) . . .

There you go untutored idiot.



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 10:48:44 AM)

what are arms? do you suppose they are talking about the things that allow you to shove your fingers up your ass, where they constantly reside, fuckwad?



WhoreMods -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 10:56:01 AM)

FR:
Why do you people pretend you give a flying fuck about the constitution when you're happy to turn a blind eye to politicians you approve of (even if you're too chickenshit scared to admit that you voted for them) ignoring and flouting it?
(Not flamebaiting, genuinely curious. Are the constitution and bill of rights only inviolable and sacred documents when it's somebody from the other lot flouting them? Because that really is how all of this pissing and moaning looks to an outside observer.)



sloguy02246 -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 11:31:26 AM)

Not that surprising, really, when you consider the number of "constitutional scholars" we have on these forums.








WhoreMods -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 11:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

Not that surprising, really, when you consider the number of "constitutional scholars" we have on these forums.

It would be nice if there were one or two whose lips don't move when they read, though, wouldn't it?



Lucylastic -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 2:03:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

Not that surprising, really, when you consider the number of "constitutional scholars" we have on these forums.

It would be nice if there were one or two whose lips don't move when they read, though, wouldn't it?

ok this made me think about this meme:)

[image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/colllar/lipsmove.jpg[/image]



Real0ne -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 3:00:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

Not that surprising, really, when you consider the number of "constitutional scholars" we have on these forums.









yeh real geniuses, nutsuckers that dont know the difference between citing a statute number, and quoting the actual statute and then have to lie on top of it. their asses would be handed to them, in a new york second if they tried pulling that ignorant shit in a federal court.

there is no fucking law anywhere in any state or the fed in the US that says "felons cannot bear arms". Neither is there 'direct' equivocation in any ruling anulling the legal overlay.

My offer stands for anyone who thinks it exists go find it, give ma call in a few years let me know how nutsucking is working for ya.



mnottertail -> RE: Purposeful Confusion? (9/15/2016 5:41:56 PM)

Uh I quoted you the fucking statute, you are a well known untutored and imbecilic legal mind. The Crown said in the Magna Charta, under alloidial foefdom and you jacking your fucking dick and explaining how George Bush was at the WTC with thermite cutters you retard.

Yes. pffffffft indeed.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02